I call bullshit. If you're telling us that that document was ever handed out by an officially sanctioned school program, then I just flat don't believe you. You're either pulling it out of your ass, or you're quoting some other right-winger who pulled it out of their ass.

Cite me a source and prove me wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Nice. Let's rephrase that for a second and see how silly it sounds:

What rights do heterosexuals have that normal people do not?

It's easy to throw those words "deviant" and "normal" around. I'm just curious, do you understand that you're talking about real people with real lives who live and love and have families just like you do, or are you not aware of the very real harm attitudes like yours bring to the people you are degrading here?

First, let's start with, oh, say, the right to marry the person we love, with the 1000+ rights that go with that. In more than 20 states, homosexuals can be discriminated against in employment, housing, adoption, familial relationship, divorce proceedings, public educational institutions, etc.

All we are talking about here is guaranteeing that people are treated equally under the law, which is one of the core values of this country.

If I have time I'll try to find it. What had happened is that they were passing this out at a sex ed health fair.

I can't believe you actually posted that. Try living in reality for a few minutes.

Thanks! I will :thumbsup:

Anyway, NCB had a great point... The moral subjectivity of the law.

Our laws are based around the dominant consensus of the population... This system NEEDS the ability for self-correction over time, because the dominant moral view shifts as time passes.

In more liberal countries such as Canada, the dominant moral view is that homosexuality, and the marriage of these people is perfectly acceptable. And thus, Canada has legalized it.

The incest/polygamy debate is a red herring... Just because the dominant moral view has evolved to accept homosexuality, doesn't mean people still don't find these things repugnant. It's used by anti-gay advocates to scare people into thinking that their views in support of same sex marriage will somehow magically bring these things into the realm of acceptable practice.

So in closing, if you don't like the law where you live, and same-sex marriage is of importance for you... You can't make people believe what you want them to, you will need to go somewhere that shares your ideological stance... Canada is an accepting country.

Thank you Gilda

1. Your slippery slopes are as hilarious as they are implausible.

2. I seriously, seriously doubt the legitimacy of that "pamphlet", given the prolific use of cursing and general language used. This is something, at best, that would be in a planned parenthood clinic. Maybe. Show us proof that this nonsense is actually going to middle school children, above your say-so. I think you've either taken us for fools, or someone else in your line of thinking has taken you for one.

3. "homosexual bar pick up joints"? you mean the health clinics listed at the bottom?

Remember, folks- don't feed the trolls.

Your opinions are your own, but you would do well to change the wording of your rhetoric so that it employs, and conveys, a bit more sense and logic, so it sounds less like the ramblings of a super-conservative crazy person.

Because right now, your wording is outrageous to the point of humorous- yet very, very sad.

If its authentic then most likely it was just some asshole who thought it would be a funny thing to hand out.

--------------------------------

I'm really not surprised by this, but you are wrong here.

Beastiality* is primarily committed by males with female animals, typically smaller farm animals such as sheep or goats, with a smaller number being females with male animals, usually large dogs.

Now, I could argue by analogy that if we allow heterosexuals to marry, this will inevitably lead to bestiality, because bestiality is primarily a heterosexual activity. I won't do that because it's ridiculous--animals aren't humans.

Incest occurs primarily between brother/sister, father/daughter, or mother/son. Look it's another heterosexual institution. If we're going to ban a form of marriage based on this, it should be the form most closely related, and that would be heterosexual marriage.

Personally, I think incest laws do need a review, but that it should be a separate debate not related to this one because different issues are involved.

Polygamy primarily takes the form of polygyny, and to my knowledge this is the only form ever in widespread practice in the US. Once again, it's primarily a heterosexual institution. If we're going to use this to restrict marriage rights, it should apply to heterosexual marriage.

Again, this is worthy of a separate debate, but doesn't belong in this one.

[satire]You know, the more and more I think about it, the less I want to be associated with you heterosexuals and your deviant heterosexual practices.[/satire]

To be clear, the above was satire to point out the absurdity of the PIB argument, not meant to be taken at face value.

*I know this wasn't mentioned. I just wanted to throw it in for free. Three for the price of two.

Equal protection under the law is a tricky thing, as it doesn't extend to all groups in this country. More specifically, homosexuals are protected under the Constitution but the issue of sexual orientation and marriage is deemed a suspect classification. By their nature, suspect classes are discriminatory but very few people here ever argue them.

No one mentioned bestiality.

This is incorrect.

Our society doesn't differentiate things considered to be taboo into a hetero/homo category. Rape is rape; Incest is incest; Polygamy is polygamy (Though it can be divided into polygyny and polyandry) etc.

The Mormom church practices both polygyny and polyandry, if you didn't know.

I didn't dare make an absolute statement. Rather I posed a question which seems to be impossible to answer. Either that or you just don't want to answer it.

Youre right, I posted the wrong one. Here ya' go

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../page_2829.jpg

:)

Okay, but who's "they", and for how long? I will eat my god damned hat if this was a handout from an official, school district-sanctioned, public-funded program. Cite me a source. Prove me wrong.

Failing that, what you have here is another baseless right-wing wack-job smear attempt. It plays to the fascist fringe, because it proves their view of things, but I can practically guarantee you it didn't happen the way you appear to be saying it did.

Of course, you've been vague enough that anything you find won't be entirely inconsistent with what you've said about it...

Theres only so much you can chalk up to "right wing smear jobs". Well, actually not, for if you prefer to bury your head in the sand than anything that contricits your ideaology can be considered as such.

About ten minutes of searching and I have the story of the booklet NCB is posting. It was produced as a guide for sexually active gay and bisexual males over 18 by the AIDS Action Committee to promote safe sexual practices. It was never part of any school program. There was a conference at Brookline High School sponsored by GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) to discuss how to help gay students deal with bullying and teasing, attended by educators and open to members of the various gay straight alliance clubs. Outside education groups were rented tables for the conference, one of these Fenway Community Health, which inadvertantly brought the booklets along with other materials to the conference. The booklets were displayed on the table, but there's no evidence right now that any child took one.

So let's see, it wasn't part of any curriculum, it happened at a conference and not in any class, the booklets aren't designed for teens anyway, were not mean to be distributed to them, were brought as a mistake, and there's no evidence any child actually took one. School officials are saying they don't believe any booklets went home with kids.

As a homosexual and a former co teacher of a Life Skills and Family Planning middle school class, I'd join your outrage if this was actually a part of a school curriculum or in any way meant to promote sexual activity among kids. It wasn't, wasn't intended to be, was a violation of conference guidelines, and may not have actually made it into the hands of any students.

This is nothing more than the anti-gay crowd trying to capitalize on an innocent, harmless mistake.

Linky.

........................

what jurisdiction does SCOTUS have over a state constitutional matter?

At some point, the feds will have to address why homosexual "marriages" arent recognized in other states while traditional ones are.

What jurisdiction? Supreme jurisdiction.

Edit: The SCOTUS won't hear the case, simply because they've already taken the stance that sexual orientation and gay rights is better left as a suspect classification.

Actually, I did. The institutions you mention have no relationship to homosexuality because--surprise--they aren't homosexual in nature. The question before us is whether same-sex couples in committed loving monogamous relationships should be permitted to legally marry.

If you compare and contrast the issues you raise with homosexuality and heterosexuality, they have more to do with the latter, and nothing to do with the former other than the desire of opponents of homosexual rights to link them for political gain.

Gilda

poses an interesting case with regards to the full faith and credit clause, though I fail to see how SCOTUS can make that call when it's the responsibility of congress.

Oh my god, NCB, if that's true, that means that teachers were actually being open and honest about sex with their students. OH NO!!!!

And all you really know is that something happened concerning homosexual education that conservative parent's groups don't like.

And you still haven't shown us where you got that pamphlet. I wonder why.

The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over a state court, only the lower federal courts.

BTW, what the fuck does anything ncb is talking about have to do with anything?

First off, did you even bother to read my post-- At all???

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that you're basing your argument off a false premise. Twice I've mentioned suspect classifications and how they relate to gay marriage yet twice you've ignored it. Per chance, do you know what a suspect classification is?

Yes, I realize this. My point was that SCOTUS has the FINAL say in the matter, if they so choose (As their decision overrides that of every other court in the land).

Sure, but it would have no effect on the state in which the marriage occurred.

Gilda

which means absolutely squat unless, or until, the NJ government takes the matter to a federal court. Until such time, this is a state matter only and SCOTUS has absolutely no jurisdiction or authority over the matter.



SCOTUS cannot 'choose' to have a say in the matter unless the NJ AG petitions the federal courts, starting with the district court for their state.

Erm... I was referencing post #59. I should have made it clear that I was speaking to Gilda.

Once again, I realize this. SCOTUS is not obligated to hear any case and, up to this point, they have made it clear that they won't take any such cases. So yes, SCOTUS can 'choose' to have a say in the matter.

1. It has to do with govt forcing values down our childrens throats. You know, stuff that you really hate

2. Gilda posted the actual article on the incident where the pamphlets came from. The story is nearly two years old and when it came out I saved the pamphlet imgs. Alsom I mistakeningly cited another similar incident.

Since when is telling someone what something is "forcing a value down someone's throat?"

When less than 10% of the genpop is homosexual, teaching our kids about rimming, fisting, and other popular homosexual practices is doing just that. Please spare me and the rest of the board with a knee jerk "hetheros do it too" reply

no problem.

It's not about an obligation or not. SCOTUS can't just say 'sorry guys, NJ gay marriage case is too damn important for you guys to handle, we're taking the case'. It's never worked that way and it's not supposed to. I realize what you're saying, that they can choose to hear it or not, but they can only make that choice once a request for cert has been made to them.

NCB, what is the point of post 55? What could you possibly be saying there other than "Gay and lesbian material should not ever be shown to middle school and high school students because it might contaiminate their perfect straight little brains and turn them into deviant homosexuals."

Your point about the pamphlet is irrelevant in this whole discussion. It was brought there by accident. It wasn't intended for kids OF EITHER high school or middle school age to see. There is no evidence that any kids say it or picked it up. You're arguing it like there is some massive gay community conspiracy to get kids to see how much fun talking dirty and using sex toys and going to gay clubs is when they're nice and young so they can be influenced into becoming gay. I hope you realize what a completely ridiculous point that is. It was done in error. The INTENDED audience for those pamphlets is more than equipped to handle the information, as would be a similarly phrased pamphlet for straight college-aged kids.

Gay people are not trying to convert everyone to be gay, as some people are apparently terrified of them doing. They just want to be allowed the same things that everyone else is allowed and want to make sure that other gay people are comfortable with their identity. What a totally ridiculous thing to want.

Absolutely. It's a legal term that means basically that when the government writes laws that favor one group of individuals over another, the disfavored group may be a "suspect classification" and the government carries the burden of proving that such discrimination has a compelling state interest, under strict scrutiny for race, and intermediate scrutiny for gender.

In other words, if you're going to write laws that discriminate, you have to prove that they're necessary. It's a limitation on the power of the government to discriminate against minorities with little or no political power.

not to be knee jerky, but do heteros practice those or not? They do, although I'm pretty sure that those are subjects that shouldn't be taught in schools.

and it would have to be a pretty large compelling interest to get around the 14th amendment, though we've never had a SCOTUS with the balls to take the really hard, but necessary, cases to support inalienable rights for all.

For clarification, the best current evidence is that 1.5-2% of females are exclusively homosexual, and 3-4% of males. It might be a bit higher than that, but the low end is the lower boundary.

Gilda

NCB, this is exactly what I mean. Please read the article before you start spouting off nonsense. NO ONE had intended to teach ANYONE'S kids about ANY of that stuff. They were brought BY ACCIDENT and NO KIDS picked them up. An embarassing and awkward incident, sure. But it was in no way a deliberate attempt by the gay community to indoctrinate minors on the glory of things that, chances are, most of them have already found on the internet anyway.

It was not done to teach 11 year olds how to fist and where to find a guy to have sex with. It was a mistake, and it's one that has literally nothing to do with the gay marriage conversation. Let it rest.

P.S. It's spelled "heterosexual," not "hetherosexual."

Well yeah... I was never debating that.

Correct! I bolded the pertinent part of your post. As we all know, states have an immediate interest in marriages. SCOTUS has already (Indirectly) stated that the issues of sexual orientation and gay marriage fall under the veil of suspect classifcations and thusly states can refuse to grant homosexuals the right to marry if they so choose. It's discrimination within the constitution and one of the many "Social injustices" upon which our society is built.

There is no "Equal protection under the law" when it comes to gay marriage.

Edit: Most of the laws that discriminate aren't necessary. They're just "There". The state only needs to prove that it has a compelling interest in the issue at hand.

On a side note, state supreme court decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court if original federal jurisdiction would've been possible. As this is clearly and exclusively a state constitution issue that doesn't impact any federal laws, it could not have been brought in federal court and thus cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Didnt know the figures. Thanks :thumbsup:

Seriously, would you expect any other kind of response when caught with their pants down? The fact remains that the orginizers knew that younger children would be milling about and yet they choose to display it anyways. They only got "concerned and remoseful" after they were caught.

Everyone bust out your tin foil hats! The gays are coming to pervert our children!

That explanation doesn't even make sense. Gays, contrary to what you obviously believe, are not so completely devoid of moral compass and common sense that they wouldn't know that passing out a pamphlet like that at a school event would be inappropriate. If, shockingly, they are so stupid, it is still totally irrational to generalize the actions of a few idiots who did something stupid to an entire class of people, most of whom would have a serious problem with showing material like that to middle and high school students.