Archive for Thursday, January 29, 2009

Bill would include sexual orientation and gender identity in state anti-discrimination laws

January 29, 2009

Advertisement

— Gay rights advocates Thursday renewed efforts to include sexual orientation and gender identity in state anti-discrimination laws.

State law now prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, religion, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry.

“It’s clear that the time has come to extend the same protections from discrimination to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people that so many other Kansans already enjoy,” said Maggie Childs, of Lawrence, board chair of the Kansas Equality Coalition.

The coalition had a bill introduced before the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee.

A similar proposal had been heard last year by the committee, but wasn’t voted on because it lacked a majority to advance the bill.

This year, backers of the measure said they think they can get a favorable committee recommendation because some of the membership of the committee has changed.

“We’re very hopeful we’ll get a vote this year,” said Thomas Witt, a lobbyist for the coalition.

In 2007, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius issued an executive order adding protections for gays and lesbians working at state executive agencies.

Comments

Raider 6 years, 3 months ago

Better watch out. That crazy preacher from Wichita (Reverend Fox?) will sign up 1 million new voters to vote everyone out of office. Also, Fred Phelps will flip out on this one. Can't wait to see both of their heads explode.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

As long as they don't try saying "gay marriage" is the same as marriage, I pretty much don't have a problem with this.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

edjayhawk,Would you support a polygamist? Or perhaps you'd endorse the marriage of a 12 year old girl to her father?Marriage is more than what you want to redefine it as.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

STRS - I'd support any number of people who want to live together and share their financial responsibilities, parenting responsibilities, among other responsibilities. For polygamy? As a woman, no. But that's not what we're talking about here. And 12 is not an age of consent in any state I know. Perhaps we could get back on topic. Yay for equal rights and non-discrimination!

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

I guess I'll happily remain part of the 70% of Kansans who voted for the Constitutional amendment ratifying marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Also, Kansas is part of the 34 of 34 states that have passed similar measures. Hooray for traditional marriage!

RogueThrill 6 years, 3 months ago

And traditional marriage is so successful.

dawn 6 years, 3 months ago

How does gay marriage impact you, STRC? I mean-- really? How does it change your life? But OK, if you stop to think of it, in America-- with our divisions between church and state-- really no one should be LEGALLY married. Marriage after all is a sacrament-- a religious thing. All the legal trappings that go along with it -- taxes, inheritance, familial responsibilities--are matters of government. Maybe we should only allow legal domestic partnerships for all-- gay or straight--assuming that those who want to partake of the marriage sacrament will find an appropriate religion willing to take them into the fold.Will that suit you better? And that way, those of you who strictly follow ancient scripture can belong to tribes/indulge in group marriages.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 3 months ago

If sittingtherecordstraight does not know the difference between consenting adults and a 12 year old girl, then I pray to God he does not have children.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

I love to see the tolerance of diverse opinions celebrated on this chat thread. :)

dawn 6 years, 3 months ago

Being a second class citizen-- or worse, being shunned/invisible-- takes its toll. These positive comments mean a lot to me and to all my friends. Thank you.

dawn 6 years, 3 months ago

STRS--"Diversity" doesn't excuse your opinion any more than "diversity" would excuse a belief in slavery. Your opinion is the sort that causes a lot of pain.

rusty2 6 years, 3 months ago

Freedom to Marry week coming up -February 8 to 14th.check out the website www.freedomtomarry.org

kuhusker 6 years, 3 months ago

Starting today, every single page I visit on LJWorld.com pops-under an ad every time I click. Thus if I visit 6 pages during a visit to the site, I have 6 ads pop up. This is new behavior today, and is very annoying. I am suing Safari. Has anyone else experienced this?

kuhusker 6 years, 3 months ago

I found a solution for the pop-ups...not sure how long it will last, but it is working for now. Basically, you need to go into your cookies database and delete all cookies from zedo.com. In Safari you can go to Preferences/Security and search for zedo.com and delete them. Not sure how it works in other browsers, but I imagine they all have a similar facility.Once I did this, the pop-ups stopped appearing...for now, at least :-)But, users shouldn't have to do this. The LJworld webmasters should not be using this sleazy method of advertising in the first place!

AngelHG 6 years, 3 months ago

thought I would share this, I read some of these posts and fear for the future of our children. No one is born hating any group of people, they are exposed to hate by the influences in their lives. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Being gay isn't natural. Americans reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, birth control and air conditioning.~Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, like how hanging around tall people will make you tall.~Legalizing gay marriage opens the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.~Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites, Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death~Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.~Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.~Gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children~Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America~Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children~Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional~There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state~

AngelHG 6 years, 3 months ago

Cont.Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr~It will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy, incest, medical marijuana, and unmuzzled pit bulls. Because we don’t know what might come down the next slippery slope, we should never change any law~Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic straight traditions, such as spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before~Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people do not need marriage because they never have children from prior relationships, artificial insemination, surrogacy, or adoption.~If the state performs gay marriages, Christians might become more liberal and divide into more mutually opposed parties. Since the government is an arm of the church and is responsible for keeping the peace in Christian leadership councils, it shouldn't get involved with gay marriage~It would allow more partners and children to sign onto the breadwinner's healthcare plan. Given that 44 million Americans do not have health insurance, it is safe to say that health insurance is not an American value~ Married gay couples will find it easier to adopt children, who might then be bullied and teased by other children for who their parents are. This reflects poorly on the judgment of gays who adopt children with the risk that their child could possibly be teased. It does not, of course, imply anything about the responsibilities of heterosexual parents, whose children only pick up rocks for geological interest and couldn't have been listening when their parents made those comments about their neighbors~It is reasonable and fair to institute "civil unions" that provide all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but we cannot apply the holy, mystical word "marriage" to this contract. Deriving from the Latin maritare, "marriage" evokes the dignity of the typical Roman man who engaged in licentious sex with both sexes until he reached middle age, at which time he maritared a teenage girl to bear his children.

igby 6 years, 3 months ago

Ha!Where are you going to work?Is the state going to pay for your job when an employer does not want to hire you because your weird looking and wear your sexuality on you shirt sleeve like a chip of cow dung from broke-back throw-backs?Grow up, dress like a worker not a clown and keep your sex life private like it should be. Sex in Public is called lewd behavior, don't expect society to accept your coming out of the closet because no one really cares that your gay of a lesbian. The attention you all want from everyone is no longer an issue of public interest. We don't care if your gay so be gay and keep your sex life to yourself.

igby 6 years, 3 months ago

This marriage thing has gotten way off the mark as well.The state licenses marriages and grants divorce. However, marriage in the biblical sense is a holy union of man and women not an un-holy union between what ever is under the sun. The state should not be in the business of licensing holy unions to begin with because it's between a man a woman and their god. The state should uphold the age old argument of division of church and state and just issue un-holy union licenses (LOL)and not call them marriage licenses at all (LOL). The "un-married", by materially responsible consenting fools. Lol.Since the state grants divorce at no-bodies fought the state has corrupted it's own self regarding the biblical status of marriage and bungled too no end the holiness of marriage and brought it down to institutionalized fodder for lawyers to prey upon for profit and CASA workers too chat about in amazement on their hour long coffee breaks. Lol. Holy unions cannot exist under the state laws of un-holy legal protections and adulterers rights of ambiguity. Therefore marriage issued by the state is in violation of the church and state divisions completely. However, Un-holy unions are not in violation of the division of church and state rule (because the licenses is open ended and can end at anytime without both parties consent). "Get it, dome A$$".The religious people will fight to no end for their right to protect their un-holy unions legal status without even realizing that their marriage is null and void without the holy union universal law of the world that no state or government can come between written in the biblical law and drawn out the biblical text. Therefore it's just a piece of paper for fools. Lol.

gr 6 years, 3 months ago

I didn't see anything about marriage in the article. Seems odd everyone jumps to that idea. But, have there been instances of discrimination based upon who or what people copulate with?"For polygamy? As a woman, no. But that's not what we're talking about here."I thought we were talking about sexual orientation? What did you think we were talking about?

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

I see no problem including sexual orientation and gender identity in state anti-discrimination laws. I don't think gays or lesbians should be denied employment or housing, etc. because of their sexual orientation.However, if the law were written broadly enough to eviscerate the recent Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, then there could be problems.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Rachaeliscancer…So it is okay to discriminate against someone who wants to be in a relationship with more than one person, and marry more than one person, but not okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians from marrying? That seems awfully hypocritical. If multiple marriages are a problem for so many then maybe it should be against the law to be married more than once.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Dawn….“How does gay marriage impact you…”Marriage is a social institution and therefore changing the definition of marriage affect society. “Marriage after all is a sacrament— a religious thing.” - dawnWrong, marriage is a civil institution. Created by state laws. Marriage's historical connection to religion is moot.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

AngelGH....Nice shotgun approach to the whole same-sex marriage debate. It lacked depth but I enjoy your sarcastic writing style.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Logicsound04….“Marriage was not defined as such until the recent rash of discriminatory amendments in 34 different states. “You are confusing amendments to State Constitutions and State Statutes. State constitutions may not have always defined marriage, but state statutes have always defined marriage.“Also, as a civil institution, based on state laws, any inclusion of sexual orientation into the anti-discrimination statute will require that marriage (or at least the benefits and legal privileges of marriage) be expanded to include same sex couples.” – LS04Most anti-discrimination laws are specific and refer to not discriminating based on employment, housing, etc. Even if the law was general enough to say no discrimination in any context, it would likely still not apply to marriage since (1) the constitution trumps any statute, and (2) the more specific marriage law would likely supersede the more general law of not discriminating. I have now seen this specific proposed legislation but my guess it is the former, since it is better to take steps if trying to make a change, not leaps.“....Satirical hem and haw about an issue that realisitically should have absolutely no effect on their lives.” – LS04I care about what affects society because I live in society. Marriage is a social institution.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Correction: " I have (not) seen this specific proposed legislation.." BTW, if anyone could provide a link, I would appreciate it.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 3 months ago

Marriage was a civil contract and not a product of the church until the 14th Century, Considering there were some 2000 years of Christianity before that without Church marriage, it is a very recent addition to the church and can hardly be called a religious institution.

dawn 6 years, 3 months ago

Wow! So marriage is NOT a sacrament!!! It's shape is NOT dictated by religious teaching/practice!!!This is fascinating to me-- and frankly good news. This means that religious teaching is NOT key to the definition of marriage and that we can now focus on building fair laws. And the law in this country has consistently come down against SEPARATE BUT EQUAL institutions.This should all get worked out very quickly then. Thank you for putting my mind at ease.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…Rachaeliscancer…So it is okay to discriminate against someone who wants to be in a relationship with more than one person, and marry more than one person, but not okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians from marrying? That seems awfully hypocritical. If multiple marriages are a problem for so many then maybe it should be against the law to be married more than once.----------------------------------------Perhaps you didn't understand my post. I said I'm OK with people who want to be in a relationship with more than one person and marry more than one person. I'm also for gays and lesbians getting married. I'm for any number of people of the age of consent sharing financial, parenting, and the other responsibilities that go along with sharing a life together.----------------------------------------------------------------------------Satirical also says, "Marriage is a social institution and therefore changing the definition of marriage affect society."----------------------------------------------------------------------------Not that gay marriage is the topic of this article....But no one is redefining your marriage, Satirical. They are DEFINING their own. Lots of things affect society. Do you have a valid argument as to why gay marriage would NEGATIVELY affect said society and therefore should be avoided?

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

dawn...Yes, laws should be fair. So you agree that marriage shouldn't discriminate against polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage?

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

gr - With my comment about polygamy, I was responding to STRS, which I noted by beginning my comment with "STRS - "I thought you of all people would have caught that.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Racheliscancer…“But no one is redefining your marriage, Satirical. They are defining their own.”This is a semantics argument, because “my marriage” is different than the definition of marriage. Technically, if Kansas changed the definition of marriage it would affect the definition of my marriage. Just as if Kansas changed the divorce laws it would change the circumstances under which I would be allowed a divorce. But my guess is that is not the point you were attempting to make.“Do you have a valid argument as to why gay marriage would negatively affect said society and therefore should be avoided?” - rachelThere are many social arguments as to why same-sex marriage, polygamy, group marriage, incestuous marriage, etc would be either beneficial or detrimental. Here is a link to arguments about some social effects of same-sex marriage.http://www.whatisprop8.com/Scholarly-Viewpoints

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

STRS - Didn't Kansas already change the definition of marriage? Were you concerned when that happened? How did it affect you, personally, and as a member of society? And note I said "valid argument" in my previous comment. What you've cited is pure baloney, as well as old and tired.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Rachaeliscancer…Where you writing to me in your last post, because you started it with STRS? Given the content, I will assume you meant to post my name.“Were you concerned when that happened? How did it affect you, personally, and as a member of society?” - rachelKansas didn’t change its definition of marriage; it adopted a constitutional amendment which aligned with the already existing statutory definition of marriage. Again, you keep referring to whether it affects me personally, as if my everyday life would change if marriage were abolished as an institution or the definition were broad enough to allow any number of entities to enter into it like a simple contract (marriage is a status not a contract). My everyday life wouldn’t likely change in either scenario, but changing the definition of marriage has an indirect affect on me and a direct affect on a society (try actually reading the arguments if you want an answer).“And note I said “valid argument” in my previous comment. What you've cited is pure baloney” - rachelSo you decided you couldn’t counter (or didn’t understand) any of the arguments and therefore used the old and tired tactic of labeling. If you don’t want to have an actual discussion that is up to you, but labeling an argument doesn’t refute it. I could just as easily label any argument you have advocating for same-sex marriage as pure baloney or invalid. But me labeling them as baloney wouldn’t necessarily make them so, just like your labeling doesn’t make those arguments invalid.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Logicsound04…“Allowing same-sex couple to marry does not affect “society””Marriage is a social institution and changing the definition would have an impact on society, to say otherwise is naïve. If changing the definition of marriage would not have impact, then marriage does not have impact on society. However, I have cited in the past numerous statistics which shows how marriage does affect society, including children. Therefore, it is easy to conclude your statement is wrong. If you want specifics on how same-sex marriage could affect society, try actually reading rather than assuming as false arguments on the topic. Even many pro-same-sex marriage advocates contend it affects society. “And don't give me that BS about needing to incentivize marriage—if that were true, then we also need to be penalizing divorce.” – LS04I have already proven how this logic is fallacious. If one wants to support or encourage something, doesn’t mean s/he must do everything in its power to support, encourage, or criminalize opposite behavior.Also, by providing incentives, it de facto does penalizes (one no longer gets the benefits). Try coming up with some new arguments rather than using the same ones I have refuted over and over again.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

Once again - Yay for equal rights and non-discrimination.STRS - you can argue that gay marriage is harmful until you're blue in the face. You can say that I don't understand the arguments against it, if calling me stupid makes your day better. I chose not to go through the Prop 8 arguments because, as I said, they're old and tired and we on this forum have gone over them again and again. You can call that a cop out if you want. In a way it is, because I typically don't argue with people like you. You have your way, I have mine. You say my way harms people, I say your way harms people. Relativism at its finest. But it still stands. Equal rights and non-discrimination is the way to go. You can't counter that.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Logicsound04…Why do you constantly jump into conversations I am having with other people when you obviously don’t understand the context of the comment? The only thing that is absurd is you creating straw-man arguments by putting words in my mouth.Changing the definition of “computer” to include a “water bottle” does affect computers because it no longer means the same thing. When you say you want a computer the scope of what you could be looking for changes. You implicitly assume this is a negative, but I do not assume changing the definition to enlarge or contract its scope is automatically negative. It is what it is; a change which technically would affect what was previously included in the definition. However, it was clear rachel’s argument was about whether it changes my everyday life to which I responded to her.

Left_handed 6 years, 3 months ago

Murder is murder, assault is assault. What difference do any of these made-up circumstances make? I think that the greater sentences should be for all crimes, not just feel-good PC BS "hate crimes".

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Rachaelisacancer…(1) It is now apparent you think I am STRS. Not that I can convince you otherwise, but I am not STRS. So in the future, if you wish to have a debate/conversation/discussion, I will not respond when you refer to STRS.(2) I never called you stupid(3) It is a “cop out,” unless you want to change the definition of “cop out” to not include labeling an argument because you can’t refute it.(4) Do “people like me” mean individuals with different opinions than yours. If so, it is really sad you don’t engage in discussion with people who think differently than you do (which I am clearly doing). Do you call yourself liberal?(5) All laws discriminate, so if you always want non-discrimination then you don’t want any laws. Yeah for non-discrimination!(6) Why do people have to have be a female and have a baby to get maternity leave. I demand that right as well! Yay for equal rights!

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Agnostick….Be a hypocrite and discriminate all you want. Why change the definition to allow same-sex marriage but exclude consenting adults who want polygamy, group marriage or incestuous marriage? The separate laws which criminalize polygamy, etc. can be changed just like the statutory definition of marriage could be changed to allow same-sex marriage. So either you are for changing laws or you aren’t, which is it?You demand that marriage shouldn’t discriminate but you clearly want to discriminate against others. So either you are okay with discrimination or you aren’t, which is it? Are you the only one who can decide what topics may be discussed?

gr 6 years, 3 months ago

Rachael is a Cancer: "With my comment about polygamy, I was responding to STRS, which I noted by beginning my comment with “STRS - ”"Do you think that's a clever evasion attempt?

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Logicsound04….“To say otherwise is to invent a “problem” for the sole purpose of making your case.”Yeah, those darn sociologist always “inventing” problems. How dare they or anyone look at what impacts society! How dare we value stable societies!--------------------“None of those statistics prove that a heterosexual marriage is any better for children than a homosexual marriage.” – LS04This is déjà vu all over again... I never said those statistics prove one marriage is better than another. Why do I have to keep telling you the context of the comment? I was countering your argument that changing the definition of marriage doesn’t impact society. It clearly does.“However, it certainly presents your argument as one of convenience, rather than one of conviction.” – LS04No, it shows I don’t universalize and look at the facts to see if the benefits of enacting a change outweigh the burdens. --------------------“However, my reasoning follows as much as your claims that anyone who supports gay marriage must also support polygamous and incestuous marriage.” – LS04No, b/c the arguments supporting same-sex marriage is, “marriage laws shouldn’t discriminate.” This is stated as a universal rule, not one that only applies to same-sex marriage. If it is a universal rule then it should be applied as such. An alternative argument is “marriage shouldn’t discriminate against same-sex couples, because X, Y, Z.”My argument is not a universal rule, but you apply it universally. My argument that marriage is good and should be encouraged, doesn’t universally mean marriage is always good, or marriage should be encouraged/forced on people at all costs, and not marrying or divorcing should always be prohibited. Again, the difference is I apply a universal rule universally which is logically correct, while you apply a specific and narrow rule universally which is logically fallacious.------------------------“However, you seem to have an issue with recognizing when an argument of yours has been refuted…” – LS04Or the converse could be true, you have an issue recognizing when you haven’t refuted my argument.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

Satirical - 1. I apologize. My first comment was directed at STRS, then you came in, then GR questioned my comment to STRS, so in the confusion I confused the two of you. You think a lot alike so I hope that's not such an offensive confusion. Honest mistake, either way.2. Implying someone doesn't understand the arguments is pretty much calling them stupid. 3. It is a cop out, not because the arguments can't be refuted, but as I noted they've been regurgitated on this forum ad naseum. I would counter, you would counter. In the end I still wouldn't believe gay marriage negatively affects society and you still would believe it. Let's save our breath. 4. "People like you" refers to people who feel they have rights that others don't, and are unwilling, regardless of any argument, to consider a different side. I would like to inform you that I have considered the arguments against gay marriage. I think gay marriage is the wrong issue to be fighting for all together, but that's a different topic for a different time. Point being - there's never going to be anything anyone says that will make you accept the idea of gays marrying. There are many people just like you in that sense, and those are the "people like you" I refer to. It's not about people having differing opinions, it's about how they form those opinions and why they hold on to them so steadfastly. I hold on to the idea that gays should be allowed to marry just like heteros, because every strong, healthy, two-dad or two-mom family I've known in my life stands to discredit all the reasons against such a union. What is it that makes you hold on to your opinion? Is it religion? Is it experience or something else? I don't know, but you've made it clear you're not interested in letting go of "your" "definition" of "marriage."5. All laws may discriminate against certain practices, but we've found it morally wrong and for the most part damaging to the progress of our society to discriminate against certain people. The people of this land have come a long way from slavery and religious persecution, and if there's any reason for hope in this world it's that we'll continue on that path to enlightenment.6. I would support you getting maternity leave. In fact, I'm pretty sure FMLA might allow you to take some time for a new baby in certain circumstances. I would argue that if your reproductive organs took part in the baby makin', you should get to take part in the maternity leave. After all, it's not like the baby is only waking your wife up in the middle of the night, you're losing sleep too.

Ralph Reed 6 years, 3 months ago

Agnostic - Good post at 0845 today. Excellent wit.*Question to everyone. Can somebody please explain to me why (and how) the posts made the leap from 'including sexual orientation and gender identity in state antidiscrimination laws' to 'same-sex marriage?' I realize that 'same-sex marriage' is a hot button issue to be brought up at any time here, but I just don't understand the leap in this thread.(Think about the "Internet Forum Calculus" forum theorem.)**I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

gr - What would I be evading? Did you ask me something? This is what I see from you...gr (Anonymous) says…I didn't see anything about marriage in the article. Seems odd everyone jumps to that idea. But, have there been instances of discrimination based upon who or what people copulate with?“For polygamy? As a woman, no. But that's not what we're talking about here.”I thought we were talking about sexual orientation? What did you think we were talking about?-----------------------------------------------If by implying some evasion on my part you are referring to the last sentence you put a question mark on, we WERE talking about polygamy. At least STRS was. Let me quote him: SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…edjayhawk,Would you support a polygamist? Or perhaps you'd endorse the marriage of a 12 year old girl to her father?"------------------------------------------------------So perhaps we're not on the same page?

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

Mr. Reed - This is how:SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…As long as they don't try saying “gay marriage” is the same as marriage, I pretty much don't have a problem with this.-----------------------------------------------------It was baited, it has been hooked. If only we could somehow argue about homosexuality and abortion at the same time, we'd be flopping around trying to get off that hook from here to kingdom come and the LJW would be quite happy to sell more banner ads.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Logicsound04….It is you who want to play a semantics game (surprise, surprise). It is also clear you have no grasp on logic. Whether the definition of “computer” is changed to include a “water bottle” or a “hand held calculator” is irrelevant to my argument. You always see analogies when none exist. My point was NOT to analogize that changing the definition of “computers” to include “water bottle” is the same as changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. The argument (as you stated but seem to then immediately forget) is whether changing the definition of something affects what was previously included in the definition. Whether you expand the definition to include “water bottles” or “handheld calculators” or contract the definition to exclude “Apple computers”, the end result is the same; the new definition affects what was previously included. If the government changed the definition of man to include woman, this would have an impact on men (this is another way to allow same-sex marriage). If you don’t think it affects the previous definition then you must have a different definition of “affect” then the rest of humanity.-----------------“There is absolutely no other demonstrable way YOUR marriage would be affected.” - LS04You have again demonstrated you don’t understand the context of the original discussion, which you hijacked, because I made a clear distinction between a law affecting my day to day life vs. a law affecting the definition. I already stated a law allowing same sex marriage would have minimal direct impact on my day to day life, just like marriage were abolished or changed to include the union of any two entities. This is different than (as demonstrated above) whether changing a definition affects what was previously included in the definition. A minor point I was attempting to make which you decided needed a whole new topic, and needed to waste my time since I have now shown my original statement is correct.-------------“HOW does it (even indirectly) affect you?! Be specific.” - LS04How many times do I have to repeat myself before you want to stop going in circles (or is this a game you play where you try to waste my time since you can't counter my arguments)? Changing the definition of marriage affects society, since I am in society it indirectly affects me. For very specific ways changing the definition of marriage could have on society try actually reading (rather than summarily dismissing because you apparently never read anything which contradicts your preconceived notions) the argument on the link I provided earlier.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Rachelisacancer…Apology accepted (referring to you calling me STRS)---------------“Implying someone doesn't understand the arguments is pretty much calling them stupid.” - rachelOne can not understand an argument and still not be stupid, if for example, they didn’t read the argument.------------------------“In the end I still wouldn't believe gay marriage negatively affects society and you still would believe it. Let's save our breath.” – rachelThen I guess people shouldn’t discuss this issue if it can never be resolved, which is bad news for people who want change, since it is hard to make a change without a discussion.“’People like you’ refers to people who feel they have rights that others don't, and are unwilling, regardless of any argument, to consider a different side.” - rachelThen I am not a “people like you” since I am willing to consider changing my side based on reason (good arguments). Also, you seem to think most rights are universal, but they aren’t, so why should marriage be different? Ex: Not everyone has the right to vote (felons). I foresee a day not too far in the future where same-sex couples will be given the right to marry. I don’t think the sky is falling because of this, but there are valid reasons why changing the most fundamental and stabilizing structure of our society should be reflected upon and questioned.------------------“It's not about people having differing opinions, it's about how they form those opinions and why they hold on to them so steadfastly. I hold on to the idea…” – rachelSo you don’t like people who “hold onto their opinions” but you hold onto your opinions,” seems hypocritical. My guess is you would not be willing to change your stance on same-sex marriage even if I presented numerous well-reasoned arguments, because it seems possible you are exactly what you think I am…closeminded.------------------“What is it that makes you hold on to your opinion?” – rachel First, I don’t know if I have said what my opinion is, I have just used arguments. Second, my opinion is based on the most logical arguments. Third, I don’t see being anti-same-sex marriage is the same as being anti-gay or lesbian. I have not argued that gays or lesbians don’t have right to be in a relationship and be happy. The issue is whether society is forced to recognized their relationship and call it a marriage. Also whether the reason marriage is encouraged applies to same-sex relationships. One can support same-sex couples and still not support same-sex marriage.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

rachelisacancer.... cont'd“All laws may discriminate against certain practices”No. All laws discriminate…period. In order to define something you are excluding everything that isn’t in that definition. If you define “X”, then “not X” isn’t included in the definition and is therefore discriminated against. This isn’t morally wrong; it is the way things work. Discrimination isn’t a bad word. Your view of "enlightenment" may not be everyone’s view of "enlightenment". Some people may think we are not enlightened until our society allows polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage, while others disagree. That doesn't mean one side is more enlightened than the other.I appreciate your willingness to advocate for my getting paternity leave. But my point was to illustrate that not all rights are universal and there are reasons why this is so. In the case of maternity leave, the reason (I am not saying I agree) is b/c of the labor and delivery strains, not because there is a new baby in the house. But just because there is disagreement on who should get this “right” doesn’t mean you are necessarily enlightened because you want to broaden the scope of who is entitled to this right, while others who disagree are not enlightened.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

Satirical - I'm not saying people shouldn't hold discussions and argue positions to achieve the changes they want to see. I'm just saying perhaps you and I shouldn't. So now we won't. But on a few notes:I don't think marriage is a right, I think it is a privilege. One afforded at one point in history only to men and their female property, at one point to two people only of the same race, and at this point only to two heterosexual people. It certainly has evolved to fit the culture. I think the fact that allowing gay marriage would be a means of ending at least some discrimination, as well as eliminating many stereotypes about gay people, as well as many other things, are all good reasons to advocate for that privilege. You don't think so and that's fine. I know you've heard all the arguments before.Discrimination is inherently bad when it hurts a specified group of people while not providing an overall greater benefit to society. There is no proven benefit to society as a whole through denying homosexuals the same privilege afforded to heterosexuals. As I said before, every competent, healthy gay family discredits all the arguments that we'll be off to hell in a handbasket if gay marriage happens. And I think felons should be able to retain their right to vote.

badger 6 years, 3 months ago

Y'know, marriage is a legal thing and a social one. The legal part is a set of rights and privileges conferred upon a married couple, and the social one is community recognition of a couple's commitment.I can marry gay people all I want, and they'll be socially married. And really, in most states, no one can stop me from performing that wedding, so long as I don't claim that any of the legal rights and privileges associated with marriage are conferred by it. And within my community, those two people are just as married, socially speaking, as a man and a woman would be. They just don't have the legal protections of a formal marriage.I figure the argument would get a lot clearer if we completely stripped the set of rights and privileges conferred by the legal status of matrimony and applied them to 'registered domestic partnership,' a partnership that could be entered into by any number of mutually consenting adults. Register them at the courthouse and completely remove any legal status conferred by a religious marriage.If clergy want to protect the 'sanctity of marriage' let them then give up the power to determine who gets a set of secular rights and privileges attached to the ceremony, and require everyone, regardless of whether or not they've had a marriage by clergy, to formally register their partnership before they can claim the legal benefits of marriage.Oh, and to the text of the article? Good. About time.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Rachelisacancer….The argument that marriage is a privilege and not a right is an even weaker argument for same-sex marriage, since government can clearly discriminate who is entitled to privileges. Marriage has changed, and may eventually change to be so broad as to have virtually no meaning (defining something to include everything means it is really nothing). It may one day be nothing more than a simple contract. But I think that will be a sad day for our society.“allowing gay marriage would be a means of ending at least some discrimination” - rachelI don’t want to keep beating a dead horse, but discrimination isn’t a bad thing, sometimes it is good. So ending discrimination could be ending something that is good (felons also don’t have the right to own a firearm, or do you support their right to do that as well?).The stereotypes can be eliminated by ways other than legalizing same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians have one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the world behind them, Hollywood. Before you start feeling so sorry for them, you might want to consider other groups that endure even more persecution who don’t have such strong supporters.“There is no proven benefit to society as a whole through denying homosexuals the same privilege afforded to heterosexuals.” – rachelThere is no proven benefit to society as a whole through allowing same-sex marriage. However, sociologist have formed educated opinions on this topic. There are many healthy polygamous families, and society has survived, but that isn’t the criteria of whether it should be made legal.

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Back to the original topic: I wonder if the bill defines "sexual orientation." If not, I can forsee an issue where a child molester sues for not being allowed to work in a day care center. He could claim his "sexual orientation" is that he is attracted to children. If this term were defined to exclude child molesters it could mitigate this potential issue.

Ralph Reed 6 years, 3 months ago

Ahhh, Thank you Nancy Boy. (re: your 1333) I was beginning to lose hope, but you came through with flying colors. Someone finally initiated a good ad hominem attack. You have restored my faith in the denizens of the LJW forums.Also, if you don't like my tag line because you've self-identified and are not anonymous, then ignore the tag line as it doesn't apply to you. ****I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Ralph Reed...."I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?"Two questions(1) Why does it matter?(2) Why do you care?

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

The government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against affording privileges to gays any more than it's allowed to discriminate against affording privileges to African Americans, women, disabled people, etc. This isn't an argument about why gay marriage should be allowed. It's an argument about the fact that it never should have been denied. Here are some of the examples you've given as to why gay marriage harms society, followed by rebuttals:1. "Children hunger for their biological parents." Well then I guess we should throw the adopted babies out with the bathwater, then.2. "Children need fathers." Hundreds of millions of children raised by single mothers says something different, now doesn't it?3. "Children need mothers." See previous rebuttal. 4. "Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate." Well that argument pretty much takes care of itself.5. "Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders." Guess that depends on what you would call a gender/sexual disorder. There are still people out there referring to homosexuality as such.6. "Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage." Quick! Name 10 heterosexual couples who've experienced no fidelity issues throughout their relationships. I won't hold my breath while you try to get to 10. On top of that, different sociological studies have found that homosexuals are no more likely to commit adultery than heterosexuals.7. "Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose." We as a society, as a human race, haven't fallen for the "sex is just for making babies" argument for a long time. I think we've got plenty of babies to go around and plenty of people willing to donate more if we find it necessary for our survival in the near future.8. "Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment." Paternal commitment? Millions of fatherless children would like to know why their hetero daddies aren't around. 9. "Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles." Thrive at a 50% success rate, right? Not to mention the fact that many homosexual couples do play gender roles.10. "Women and marriage domesticate men." Do I even have to refute that ridiculousness? What exactly does domesticate mean? If it all falls back on the fidelity issue, we've covered that.Satirical says, "There are many healthy polygamous families, and society has survived, but that isn't the criteria of whether it should be made legal."If we're not making something legal just because it doesn't cause harm, and we aren't making something illegal just because it does cause harm, what then, would be the criteria?

rusty2 6 years, 3 months ago

mrnancyboyneedstogetalife -never had sex with yourself right?

rusty2 6 years, 3 months ago

mrnancyboy - you forget that living in Kansas increases the odds of being able to 'boff' a RepublKLAN !LOL

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 3 months ago

Kansas cannot even be compelled to shed the red dress for a blue one( blue being the new and truer red ) ... and you're suggesting tie-dye?!

weluvbowling 6 years, 3 months ago

I use to work at the NCC for the EEOC and I find this to be a good addition to the laws in the State of Kansas. No, I am not gay/lesbian BUT there are so many people out there that are discriminated against due to their sexual orientation that it is unreal.My son, his friends, even some of my friends need laws like this. Do I believe in gay marriage? I believe that god made Adam and Eve but does anyone really know WHY people have a preference of one sex or another? Am I against gay marriage? NO! I believe in to each their own. I believe that in the end we have to answer to one person and that one person is judge and juror. The rest of us have no right to judge anyone by who they want to love and be loved by. Except that we are all entitled to our own opinion and we do have freedom of speech. I also think that maybe God made some people imperfect (gay, lesbian, mentally challenged, physically challenged and so on) to see how accepting we are of "others".Now, I do believe that there is a time and a place for everything. Just as with straight relationships, there is never a time or place for "kissing" on the job or other "intimate" behavior. Well unless of course you work for a brothel. laughs Not to mention there is proper behavior/attire for work. We all have to follow company policy, as long as it is non discriminatory.Just my opinion.

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

badger: As usual, could not have said it better myself.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 3 months ago

Marriage is a matter of hearts... and parts... within the broader existential context--bastardized by formalities and "legalities."

bolshavik_vw 6 years, 3 months ago

It's about time. They may get to help us out at work. My BOSS IS totally all about Discrimination of the Female Gender. He has told a few females that they belong in kitchen barefoot and pregnant. And this has not been but a few months ago. He only hires females with a huge chest. Does not matter if they can do the job or not. He got with one of our other employees. She no longer works there. And I feel for her. Although she was a great worker and he did not hire her. She was hired by our boss that moved into KC.When he is not around her, he dogs her culture so bad.Making fun of her people and saying all they do is drink.He makes the women do stuff that a man should do. Like picking up heavy, nasty Garbage Bags full of Trash. Also having us get up on a ladder and clean out vents, does not matter that some of us are afraid of Heights, and that we have a Vertigo.(Inner Ear problem, causing Dizzy Spells. ) Or real bad allergies from Dust and Mold.All I am saying is something needs to help us out here at work. I am not only speaking for me, I am speaking for all the females at my job. We need to have equality in our workplace. And I am sure we are not the only ones who have problems. Although we now have a new President, who thank gosh passed Equal Pay Laws for Women. It is our time to Shine.By the way, the place that I am talking about is Steak N Shake in Lawrence, And the boss is Harry. So ladies tell all of your friends IF you do go out there to apply for a Job. DO NOT HAVE HIM TALK TO YOU,Have someone else talk to you! Because if you do not fit his description of what I had told you. It will be a waste of time.

weluvbowling 6 years, 3 months ago

bolshavik_vw (Anonymous) says…"Although we now have a new President, who thank gosh passed Equal Pay Laws for Women. It is our time to Shine."Our new President did did what? Equal pay laws for women have been in force with the EEOC for a long time. The Equal Pay Act of 1963...The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women be given equal pay for equal work in the same establishment. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal. It is job content, not job titles, that determines whether jobs are substantially equal. http://www.eeoc.gov/ - main page linkhttp://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html - equal pay link http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html - disability linkEEOC Discrimination by Type:Age, Disability, Equal Pay, National Origin, Pregnancy, Race, Religion, Retaliation, Sex , Sexual Harassment

weluvbowling 6 years, 3 months ago

bolshavik_vw...you really should check the site out and if things are as bad as you say they are file a charge. There is a law called retaliation on their site and it states an employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination. The same laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability, as well as wage differences between men and women performing substantially equal work, also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding. Good luck!!!

weluvbowling 6 years, 3 months ago

in my previous post I said "Our new President did did what?"I think I kinda stuttered there...LOL...I was amazed at what I read! I think I saw something on this in the news and questioned it then too! It still has me stuttering! LOL

Ralph Reed 6 years, 3 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) wrote… “Two questions(1) Why does it matter?(2) Why do you care?”**Two answers1. Personal responsibility for one's actions.2. See number 1.Asked and answered. Now back to the thread from this digression.**I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 3 months ago

Marriage has been changed many times, interracial, Polygamy, age of consent, divorce, property rights, Marriage has always changed and will always change.it is a false argument to claim this change is any different than those.Marriage was a civil matter until the church took it over in the 14th century, it changed then too.When it boils down to it, there are very specific evidence that minors of a certain age suffer harms or do not have the faculties to make an adult decision when it comes to any contract, including marriage. That is definable. Incest has also very definable impact on mental and physical health. Multi-member couples is more debatable as they are all consenting adults, but because the history of polyamory is mostly demonstrated in the one man several wives and has a long history of physical, sexual and emotional abuse,. No such harms exist, have ever been demonstrated in same-sex marriages.Same sex families rate well in social adjustment. Same-sex families with children rate as well or higher than the averages when it comes to crucial issues about their children (health, education, and the like).Therefore the ONLY thing left standing is bigotry. Simple hate and fear of what is different and since no harms are demonstratable, it is time to let homophobia in the law books go the way of segregation.1. CHURCH A) Not a product of the church until the 14th Century B) There is a Constitutional right to not force religion on the nation through legislation2. Tradition A) The definition of marriage has been constantly changed throughout history B) There were traditions of slavery, segregation, and many others that lasted centuries that no longer are aplicable.3. Opens the door to ... A) There are dozens of countries and many places around the world that recognize same-sex marriage..NONE of them have had a rush of incest marriages, multi-member marriages, children marriages..none ever as a result of allowing gay marriages, a mythical argument B) The opening door is compared to demonstrated harmful activities and no such harm has been demonstrated by same-sex marriagePromotes Homesexuality A) The stats, scientists, and most anyone educated on the issue have been able to pretty well determine that being gay is either a something we are born with or developed in the first few years of life, the mythical and disproven hysteria of recruitment or pushing someone in any one direction is pretty clearly not possible. B) there is, however, a demonstrated decrease in suicides in communities that are more tolerant. Most teen suicides that are related to sexual identity issues can traced back to the hatred and fear they receive from intolerance. The same sort of diseased society that leads to people like Haggard or Larry Craig Or Bob Allen, or Glenn Murphy Jr or Mark Foley

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

Is this thread still only on the subject of marriage?

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

If you want to see how gay marriage hurts society, then by all means click on Satirical's link. . . which leads to more links. . . . and one of them includes gems like these.9. Gay Marriage de-genderizes marriage.. . . But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.10: Women and marriage domesticate men.Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

Didn't take much time. Second one I clicked.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 3 months ago

The work that jonas cited is the work I refuted in response to Satirical earlier. Every single claim against gay marriage is ridiculous.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.