Keep up the Great work Dwyer!

[Dork]

http://somd.com/news/headlines/2007/5595.shtml

Thanks Dwyer for doing what is right! The moral majority appreciates your stance and respect you for not cowering down to the liberal lefty loudmouth minority. It's refreshing and gives us hope that there is a cure!

 

[vraiblonde]

I am pro-gay marriage but dead set against teaching it in schools. That is NOT the school's job - it is the parents' job and their rights should not be usurped by the damn school.

I completely understand that gays want the same rights as heterosexuals, and I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. This includes teaching about it in schools, which smacks of the indoctrination we hear the Religious Right complain about, that I thought was a silly overreaction until I heard about this bill.

 

[christy217]

I am queer, in my opinion, if they teach "hetero" sex ed in school, then they should teach all sex ed in school, all in all, i think it should be taught in the home, not in school. I feel this is a matter for the parents, not the school, however, it takes more than a sperm and egg to be a parent. You can make a baby, but it doesn't make you a parent, I guess that's why the schools feel you need sex ed, for those that fall through the cracks?

This is sort of off topic but, there are two ways to skin a cat, (pardon the choice of words), however, I don't care if they call it gay marriage, lesbian marriage, unions, or what have nots. Just give me the same rights as my heterosexual counterparts that's all I am concerned about.

I had cancer earlier this year, prior to my surgery, one of my main concerns was whether or not my partner, of 7 years, was going to be able to make a decision on my behalf in case something horrible happened, and to make sure they would allow her visitation rights. We had our living wills and powers of attorneys revised prior to my surgeries and made the hospital and surgeon aware of everything prior to my surgery. Although, we made provisions, nothing was guaranteed.

What I don't understand about the marriage debate is marriage is a civil union, it's a legal document, granted by the state government, the wedding is the actual ceremony, having to do with "religion and or based on your culture" if we truly are separated by church and state, then what is the problem? And why are we having such the conflict here? It's so sad that someone is so concerned about whether or not I have the right to marry, and I get irritated when I hear about the santicity of marriage, no offense, but the divorce rates are already high enough, what more could I do? How am I going to affect the santicity of marriage?

Economically, it would in the benefit of the states to legalize gay marriage, the fees they would collect from marriage licenses first would bring in revenue, not to mention, the small businesses that have been created by the gay marriage business-boom-I could go on and on, but Mass. has seen this for starters, okay I will get off my soap box. Thanks for listening.

 

[Geek]

http://somd.com/news/headlines/2007/5595.shtml

Thanks Dwyer for doing what is right! The moral majority appreciates your stance and respect you for not cowering down to the liberal lefty loudmouth minority. It's refreshing and gives us hope that there is a cure!

98% of your posts here are anti-gay. Do you have anything else to talk about :shrug: I think I will follow your posts for a while to see if you are fixating on gay people. I do not like you Dork. At all.

 

[CBsblueeyes]

When will it ever end?

I am a lesbian mom with 3 boys. All but one are grown and on their own. My boys had a hard time dealing with me and my partner at first but things have turned around when their dad met the women he is with right now. They saw that we were there for them and we treated them all fairley. The women that their dad is living with, has treated my youngest son like dirt since they have been togather. The boys have had trouble in school because of me. They have learn to handle it very well. If it was taught in the schools their problems more than likely would of been less. I agree that sex ed should be taught in the home but, since it is not in some lets explain all types of relationships in school. What can it hurt. And just maybe it will help the kids who are questions their sexuality. I found a bumper sticker a while back that said "I AM FOR THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND HATE!" Maybe if more people believed that then there would be less hate in this world. The moral majority is not alwayse so moral.

 

[This_person]

I am queer, in my opinion, if they teach "hetero" sex ed in school, then they should teach all sex ed in school, all in all, i think it should be taught in the home, not in school. I feel this is a matter for the parents, not the school, however, it takes more than a sperm and egg to be a parent. You can make a baby, but it doesn't make you a parent, I guess that's why the schools feel you need sex ed, for those that fall through the cracks?

This is sort of off topic but, there are two ways to skin a cat, (pardon the choice of words), however, I don't care if they call it gay marriage, lesbian marriage, unions, or what have nots. Just give me the same rights as my heterosexual counterparts that's all I am concerned about.

I had cancer earlier this year, prior to my surgery, one of my main concerns was whether or not my partner, of 7 years, was going to be able to make a decision on my behalf in case something horrible happened, and to make sure they would allow her visitation rights. We had our living wills and powers of attorneys revised prior to my surgeries and made the hospital and surgeon aware of everything prior to my surgery. Although, we made provisions, nothing was guaranteed.

What I don't understand about the marriage debate is marriage is a civil union, it's a legal document, granted by the state government, the wedding is the actual ceremony, having to do with "religion and or based on your culture" if we truly are separated by church and state, then what is the problem? And why are we having such the conflict here? It's so sad that someone is so concerned about whether or not I have the right to marry, and I get irritated when I hear about the santicity of marriage, no offense, but the divorce rates are already high enough, what more could I do? How am I going to affect the santicity of marriage?

Economically, it would in the benefit of the states to legalize gay marriage, the fees they would collect from marriage licenses first would bring in revenue, not to mention, the small businesses that have been created by the gay marriage business-boom-I could go on and on, but Mass. has seen this for starters, okay I will get off my soap box. Thanks for listening.

The problem with what you're saying is that you're mixing morality, religion, and secular teachings. "They" don't teach "hetero" sex-ed in school. There's teaching of sex-ed because there's a science to creating a life. That science is taught. I know of no one who was taught how to be a good parent, merely a biological one. So, since there is no way to procreate as a homosexual, that's not taught. What would be the point? So, no, they're not teaching how to be a heterosexual parent, they teach how procreation works (not how sex works). There are also child rearing courses in some schools. Again, this is not a moral or religious concept. This is just general care providing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "having the same rights" part of what you're saying. You explained that you took care of the legalities very well to ensure that you had the exact same "rights" as a married couple. A man and woman who choose not to marry follow the same path you followed so you and your partner would have the same "rights" as a married couple. What further would you gain with a civil union? Every "right" you speak of is able to be obtained through a different set of paperwork than a marriage license. You seem to be speaking at cross purposes when you say you don't have similar rights, then list how you obtained those same rights.

Just so you understand, we are not separated by church and state. I've read the constitution many times, and never read once that there is a separation of church and state. The first ammendment says that the state can not establish a required religion. No one wants that. No one wants the state to tell you, me, nor any one else what they have to believe. But, that doesn't imply a separation of church and state. The state should foster those social norms that help establish a stable populace. Charitable organizations help the state. If they happen to be connected to a religion, that's fine. That's not the state establishing a religion. Schools, same concept. However, there are other things that help establish that stable social norm. Using the dictionary as a way of defining what marriage is ("the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife", American Heritage college Dictionary, third edition) is one way of doing that. Now, you said "marriage is a civil union, it's a legal document, granted by the state government, the wedding is the actual ceremony, having to do with religion and or based on your culture". There are cultures that allow multiple wives, multiple husbands, and (as was recently performed) humans with other species (Woman marries dolphin ). We, as an American society, have decided that these things are not things we choose to foster. Included in that is treating homosexual long term relationships in identical ways as we treat heterosexual relationships. Since, as you described above, there is no loss of "rights" to people for not choosing to marry, I'm in agreement with you - I don't know why there's a debate at all. No one is at a loss in the current system, it violates no one's "rights", and it's a centuries old way of fostering stable societal norms. Everything seems fine with no changes. I also agree that these debates are eroding the sanctity of the concept of marriage and that's a contributing factor (as are several other erosions of societal norms otherwise known as community moral standards) to the higher than acceptable divorce rate. We, as a society, should do everything we can to stop these erosions before we decay as a society beyond the common good.

 

[Dork]

98% of your posts here are anti-gay. Do you have anything else to talk about :shrug: I think I will follow your posts for a while to see if you are fixating on gay people. I do not like you Dork. At all.

I really don't care if you like me at all, Geek. I have a lot of NORMAL friends and don't need your love. I truely believe that most people have the same views as "this person" has expressed, whether you believe it or not. NORMAL people are conditioned to stay quiet by the media, etc. but overall do not think the gay lifestyle is anywhere close to normal.

 

[This_person]

I had cancer earlier this year, prior to my surgery, one of my main concerns was whether or not my partner, of 7 years, was going to be able to make a decision on my behalf in case something horrible happened, and to make sure they would allow her visitation rights. We had our living wills and powers of attorneys revised prior to my surgeries and made the hospital and surgeon aware of everything prior to my surgery.

I didn't address this directly. I hope everything came out okay for you. Please don't take anything I said before as any kind of an attack - that's not my point at all. I hope you and your partner are fine, and that you made it through this trying circumstance in every good way.

 

[vraiblonde]

What I don't understand about the marriage debate is marriage is a civil union, it's a legal document, granted by the state government, the wedding is the actual ceremony, having to do with "religion and or based on your culture" if we truly are separated by church and state, then what is the problem? And why are we having such the conflict here? It's so sad that someone is so concerned about whether or not I have the right to marry, and I get irritated when I hear about the santicity of marriage, no offense, but the divorce rates are already high enough, what more could I do? How am I going to affect the santicity of marriage?

I completely agree with you, but that has nothing to do with the topic, which is whether schools should be teaching students about this.

As someone said earlier, sex ed typically consists of reproduction, with a bit ab out STDs thrown in for good measure. You know, the hazards of sex Schools should not teach children about marriage or relationships - it's not their job or their business.

 

[Geek]

I really don't care if you like me at all, Geek. I have a lot of NORMAL friends and don't need your love. I truely believe that most people have the same views as "this person" has expressed, whether you believe it or not. NORMAL people are conditioned to stay quiet by the media, etc. but overall do not think the gay lifestyle is anywhere close to normal.

Where do you get your "morality"?

 

[somdebay]

I really don't care if you like me at all, Geek. I have a lot of NORMAL friends and don't need your love. I truely believe that most people have the same views as "this person" has expressed, whether you believe it or not. NORMAL people are conditioned to stay quiet by the media, etc. but overall do not think the gay lifestyle is anywhere close to normal.

what is NORMAL!?

 

[Geek]

The problem with what you're saying is that you're mixing morality, religion, and secular teachings. "They" don't teach "hetero" sex-ed in school. There's teaching of sex-ed because there's a science to creating a life. That science is taught. I know of no one who was taught how to be a good parent, merely a biological one. So, since there is no way to procreate as a homosexual, that's not taught. What would be the point? So, no, they're not teaching how to be a heterosexual parent, they teach how procreation works (not how sex works). There are also child rearing courses in some schools. Again, this is not a moral or religious concept. This is just general care providing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "having the same rights" part of what you're saying. You explained that you took care of the legalities very well to ensure that you had the exact same "rights" as a married couple. A man and woman who choose not to marry follow the same path you followed so you and your partner would have the same "rights" as a married couple. What further would you gain with a civil union? Every "right" you speak of is able to be obtained through a different set of paperwork than a marriage license. You seem to be speaking at cross purposes when you say you don't have similar rights, then list how you obtained those same rights.

Just so you understand, we are not separated by church and state. I've read the constitution many times, and never read once that there is a separation of church and state. The first ammendment says that the state can not establish a required religion. No one wants that. No one wants the state to tell you, me, nor any one else what they have to believe. But, that doesn't imply a separation of church and state. The state should foster those social norms that help establish a stable populace. Charitable organizations help the state. If they happen to be connected to a religion, that's fine. That's not the state establishing a religion. Schools, same concept. However, there are other things that help establish that stable social norm. Using the dictionary as a way of defining what marriage is ("the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife", American Heritage college Dictionary, third edition) is one way of doing that. Now, you said "marriage is a civil union, it's a legal document, granted by the state government, the wedding is the actual ceremony, having to do with religion and or based on your culture". There are cultures that allow multiple wives, multiple husbands, and (as was recently performed) humans with other species (Woman marries dolphin ). We, as an American society, have decided that these things are not things we choose to foster. Included in that is treating homosexual long term relationships in identical ways as we treat heterosexual relationships. Since, as you described above, there is no loss of "rights" to people for not choosing to marry, I'm in agreement with you - I don't know why there's a debate at all. No one is at a loss in the current system, it violates no one's "rights", and it's a centuries old way of fostering stable societal norms. Everything seems fine with no changes. I also agree that these debates are eroding the sanctity of the concept of marriage and that's a contributing factor (as are several other erosions of societal norms otherwise known as community moral standards) to the higher than acceptable divorce rate. We, as a society, should do everything we can to stop these erosions before we decay as a society beyond the common good.

Everything seems fine to you. Do you know a gay family? Do you have a loved one that is gay? You can not comment with any
authority what "fine" is for gay people without having been exposed to their daily struggles. Or better yet, ask a gay person what it is like to be gay in this society with people like Dork claiming to be "normal".

 

[itsbob]

what is NORMAL!?

Since the massive majority of the world is Heterosexual that insinuates that normal would be heterosexual.

Homosexuality isn't the norm.

 

[itsbob]

I am queer, in my opinion, if they teach "hetero" sex ed in school, then they should teach all sex ed in school, all in all, i think it should be taught in the home, not in school. I feel this is a matter for the parents, not the school, however, it takes more than a sperm and egg to be a parent. You can make a baby, but it doesn't make you a parent, I guess that's why the schools feel you need sex ed, for those that fall through the cracks?

This is sort of off topic but, there are two ways to skin a cat, (pardon the choice of words), however, I don't care if they call it gay marriage, lesbian marriage, unions, or what have nots. Just give me the same rights as my heterosexual counterparts that's all I am concerned about.

I had cancer earlier this year, prior to my surgery, one of my main concerns was whether or not my partner, of 7 years, was going to be able to make a decision on my behalf in case something horrible happened, and to make sure they would allow her visitation rights. We had our living wills and powers of attorneys revised prior to my surgeries and made the hospital and surgeon aware of everything prior to my surgery. Although, we made provisions, nothing was guaranteed.

What I don't understand about the marriage debate is marriage is a civil union, it's a legal document, granted by the state government, the wedding is the actual ceremony, having to do with "religion and or based on your culture" if we truly are separated by church and state, then what is the problem? And why are we having such the conflict here? It's so sad that someone is so concerned about whether or not I have the right to marry, and I get irritated when I hear about the santicity of marriage, no offense, but the divorce rates are already high enough, what more could I do? How am I going to affect the santicity of marriage?

Economically, it would in the benefit of the states to legalize gay marriage, the fees they would collect from marriage licenses first would bring in revenue, not to mention, the small businesses that have been created by the gay marriage business-boom-I could go on and on, but Mass. has seen this for starters, okay I will get off my soap box. Thanks for listening.

Whcih softball team are you on!??

 

[This_person]

Everything seems fine to you. Do you know a gay family? Do you have a loved one that is gay? You can not comment with any
authority what "fine" is for gay people without having been exposed to their daily struggles. Or better yet, ask a gay person what it is like to be gay in this society with people like Dork claiming to be "normal".

I'm not trying to speak for anyone. I stated why I thought things were fine - because no one has any rights being violated, nor any undue stress from a legal standpoint. I am certainly no authority, nor am I trying to claim to be. Whether I know a homosexual "family", whether I'm homosexual, or whether I am related to anyone who is homosexual is really not relavent. I'm trying to speak from a point of view of wondering what the problem is. There is every avenue for homosexual partners to have the legal standings they seek as far as inheritance, medical issues and decisions, palimony (started as a heterosexual issue), etc. If you're asking if people have it hard because they're homosexual - well, I'm not speaking to that issue. That gets into bigotry and ignorance as much as it does religion and morality. That's not the end I'm speaking from. If you're asking if people are accepted for who they are, well, obviously NO. Fat people aren't, ugly people aren't, less intelligent people aren't, black, yellow, white, and red people all have idiots out there who are bigotted against them just like homosexuals. There are whole books out there slamming people just because of their hair color for goodness sake. My thought on whether you're accepted because you're homosexual is "get over it!" Crimes against because you're homosexual? Once again, that happens to any group of people who have any difference from someone else enough to identify. Again, fat, ugly, white, black, smart, dumb - everyone is a victim of something or someone. Get over it.

Now, if there's an opinion I've expressed where I'm wrong, please feel free to discuss that issue. But, if you just want to ask me about my family's sexual orientation as a prerequisite to have an opinion, I'm not going there again.

 

[christy217]

Whcih softball team are you on!??

Thank you for the stereotype, I don't play on one actually, I am not overweight, and I do shave my legs, when I want, LOL .

Christy

 

[christy217]

Regardless of anyone's opinion, everyone has a right to one that's one thing that is so great about this country, Dork, and this person, I am not offended by what you said, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine!

God Bless and Have a great weekend to all!

Christy

 

[christy217]

I completely agree with you, but that has nothing to do with the topic, which is whether schools should be teaching students about this.

As someone said earlier, sex ed typically consists of reproduction, with a bit ab out STDs thrown in for good measure. You know, the hazards of sex Schools should not teach children about marriage or relationships - it's not their job or their business.

I concur with ya!

 

[Toxick]

what is NORMAL!?

normal (nor' m@l) adj.
1) In behavior, normal means not deviating very much from the average;




I've highlighted the relevant passage.


Yer welcome.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Since the massive majority of the world is Heterosexual that insinuates that normal would be heterosexual.

Homosexuality isn't the norm.