Craig Gone Too

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Gay rights advocates want to avoid the comparison because they know darn well that the general public views the issues as identical,

I think the general public is a little more enlightened than to think these two issues are one in the same.

We're not talking about multiple spouses, just two people who want the same rights as thousands of others. Why should we deny them that. Don't call it marriage, hell call it whatever you want. The same reasons you state were used against interracial marriage back in the 1950's.

Of course they aren't one and the same. But the issues involved are extremely similar, in my opinion. Why does multiple spouses change the comparison so much? What goes on behind closed doors/no threat to another person's marriage, all the same arguments used apply in support of polygamist rights. Gay rights advocates aren't satisfied with it being a union/same as a marriage but by another name. Many on this site that are in favor of gay marriage say they have no problem with polygamy, what about you? It is for certain though, the general public does will not support it. I generally hate analogies/comparisons, but I think in this case it is very appropriate. You say, "we're not talking about multiple spouses...", and compare the issue to interracial marriage bans, but I can say that we're not talking about skin color, we're talking about gender. Although I put all this energy into this debate, actually it is OK with me if gays can marry. I just like to point out that gays aren't the only group subject to marriage rights discrimination, and if they get it, then polygamists should also. In the end, it sucks that lawyers will be the winners when they divorce.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Many on this site that are in favor of gay marriage say they have no problem with polygamy, what about you?

I have no problem with polygamy. If both parties are adults and OK with it then fine. But they better be aware of the consequences down the line. When my friends parents got divorced it was ugly and costly. I can't imagine adding more spouses to that mess. Like you said the only winners in this whole mess will the the lawyers.

[billvon 2,434]

> Mr. Craig resigns under pressure from his own party...Gerry Studds...
>well, the standing ovation really says it all, doesn't it?

Perhaps it says that people don't like criminals, but are OK with gay men? Crazy idea, I know . . .

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

At the risk of continuing thread drift on a subject already well worn, I think that if plural marriage can be denied to polygamists without causing such outrage, then why should gays expect different treatment?

Because there is a lot of issues (legal, parenting, immigration, etc) with plural marriage, which gay marriage does not have.

What you said was used to support the interracial marriage ban (with mentioning the Creator and Jesus, of course). Do you think they should be banned either? After all, if plural marriage can be denied to polygamists without causing such outrage, then why should we allow interracial marriages?

Quote

Gay rights advocates will say that they should be treated as totally separate issues, no reason to link them. I say bullshit, they comparison is absolutely valid.

I say, you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about.

Imagine a "marriage" with 2 men and 2 women. If one woman gets a baby, who are parents/guardians, have parenting rights? If one man wants to get off the marriage, is it divorce, or still the same marriage? If someone wants to join the marriage, how should it happen (everyone agrees, or just one person)? And so on.

NONE of those issues have any relationship with gay marriage. Actually you will not find ANY difference in gay marriage outside the bullshit like "moral values", and holy bible.

Quote

Gay rights advocates want to avoid the comparison because they know darn well that the general public views the issues as identical, and that there is no way that polygamy will be supported by the general public.

How many people have you seen or heard who said they _need_ polygamy marriage?
And yow many people have you seen or heard who said they _need_ gay marriage?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

> Mr. Craig resigns under pressure from his own party...Gerry Studds...
>well, the standing ovation really says it all, doesn't it?

Perhaps it says that people don't like criminals, but are OK with gay men? Crazy idea, I know . . .

Studds wasn't that he was gay, his problem was that he had sex with a minor that was basically working for/subordinate to him. Crazy idea, I know, to actually discuss the real problem that he created for himself (although it wasn't a problem for his own political party) instead of trying to pretend it was about him being gay. Nice try at the diversion.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Because there is a lot of issues (legal, parenting, immigration, etc) with plural marriage, which gay marriage does not have.

What does immigration have to do with it?

Quote

After all, if plural marriage can be denied to polygamists without causing such outrage, then why should we allow interracial marriages?

Bans against interracial marriages were dropped a long time ago because we finally stopped condoning legal racism. The difference between my comparison of polygamy and gay marriage to a comparison with interracial marriage is that polygamy is still illegal, and is still not supported by the general public. Big difference, I think.

Quote

Imagine a "marriage" with 2 men and 2 women. If one woman gets a baby, who are parents/guardians, have parenting rights? If one man wants to get off the marriage, is it divorce, or still the same marriage? If someone wants to join the marriage, how should it happen (everyone agrees, or just one person)? And so on.

NONE of those issues have any relationship with gay marriage.

So, it matters so much how complicated the divorce process would be? I don't think it would be so hard to define what would happen, or at least to provide a framework for the legal system. I don't see how this is such a big problem that justifies it being illegal.

Quote

How many people have you seen or heard who said they _need_ polygamy marriage?
And yow many people have you seen or heard who said they _need_ gay marriage?

Polygamists don't complain too much about the legalized discrimination against them, that is for sure. There are some that do, however, but the media doesn't pay too much attention to them because the general public accepts the discrimination.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[SkydiveJack 1]

Most of you have some interesting and valid points. But I want to offer a new take on this.

In the past it was a bad thing to be Gay. It was a deep dark secret. The thinking of the day went something like this. In government circles some people could find themselves compromised and blackmailed. Federal employees could be turned into spies and lawmakers could be pressured into voting certain ways or else they would be exposed.

More recently, being Gay has become no big deal and no longer taboo except in the US military. I'm sure many of us know and jump with Gay men and women. No big deal.

The problem with Craig's situation is this. First, it is pretty clear that he was trying to pick up someone in the men’s room. All the signals were there and the police determined that they had valid reasons to take action. The foot tapping and hand signal are apparently standard code for these kinds of encounters.

Therefore, I believe all of Craig's denials are lies and he can't, and won't, admit the truth. It puts him in the position that he could, or already might have been blackmailed. I could care less if he is Gay or tried to pick up some guy in a restroom. What I care about is that he never addressed the arrest publicly until the press broke it over two months later AND that he thinks he can lie his way out of being what he is.

Screw all the party politics. The guy is a liar and can not be trusted by his constituents.

[billvon 2,434]

>Studds wasn't that he was gay, his problem was that he had sex with
>a minor that was basically working for/subordinate to him.

Nope. The guy wasn't a minor under DC laws. He did indeed do something unethical, because the guy worked for him; the modern equivalent would be a single senator dating an 18 year old aide of his. As a result he was censured, which is how such things should be handled.

>Nice try at the diversion.

Nice try at claiming he was a minor!

Hey, I hear Foley was a democrat . . . .

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

>Studds wasn't that he was gay, his problem was that he had sex with
>a minor that was basically working for/subordinate to him.

Nope. The guy wasn't a minor under DC laws. He did indeed do something unethical, because the guy worked for him; the modern equivalent would be a single senator dating an 18 year old aide of his. As a result he was censured, which is how such things should be handled.

Oh, no wonder the dems in congress gave him a standing ovation. He didn't do anything illegal because of DC age of consent laws, so they had no problem with his actions. So, yep, it was indeed Studd's problem, regardless of DC's laws.

If libs want to make that their position, then they can have it!

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Studds wasn't that he was gay, his problem was that he had sex with
>a minor that was basically working for/subordinate to him.

Nope. The guy wasn't a minor under DC laws. He did indeed do something unethical, because the guy worked for him; the modern equivalent would be a single senator dating an 18 year old aide of his. As a result he was censured, which is how such things should be handled.

>Nice try at the diversion.

Nice try at claiming he was a minor!

Hey, I hear Foley was a democrat . . . .

I hear the aide he was sending the emails to wasn't a minor either... doesn't matter to the Dems as long as they can "get another Republican", right?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I hear the aide he was sending the emails to wasn't a minor either... doesn't matter to the Dems as long as they can "get another LYING HYPOCRITICAL CROOKED Republican", right?

Fixed it for you the way it SHOULD have been written.

[billvon 2,434]

>Oh, no wonder the dems in congress gave him a standing ovation.

Another FOXism. The democrats in Congress did not give him a standing ovation. You may have heard about a small group of his supporters at a 'town hall' meeting in his district giving him a standing ovation after his first appearance after his censure, and mistaken that for "democrats in congress."

(You know, at a Duke Cunningham event here, he gave a farewell speech to some of his closest supporters after he pled guilty to tax evasion, bribery etc. They applauded afterwards. But somehow I don't think people will start saying "congressional republicans applauded Duke Cunningham!")

> He didn't do anything illegal because of DC age of consent laws, so
> they had no problem with his actions.

And yet another error. Democrats voted nearly unanimously to censure him; the final vote was 420 to 3. There was no ovation, standing or otherwise.

You are 0 for 3! Perhaps someone should publish a "republican myths explored" so republicans (and other FOX viewers) don't make such basic errors.

[billvon 2,434]

>I hear the aide he was sending the emails to wasn't a minor either...

He was either 16 or 17 when Foley first sent the explicit IM's.

However, he had not been convicted of any crime, and a censure of Foley would have been more appropriate. For whatever reason the GOP first tried to cover up his behavior, and then when it became public, pushed for his resignation. (Perhaps this was due to him sponsoring a law that made what he did illegal.)

[TheAnvil 0]

It's not the gay thing, it's the seduction of youngsters that's disgusting...as was the standing ovation. Then again, look who was clapping! Ted Kennedy!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Then again, look who was clapping! Ted Kennedy!

The Frogman of the Chappaquiddick (D-Chivas Regal) himself...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

I love it how you guys bring up 40 year old stuff all the time.. to justify that EVERYONE does it.. including YOUR guys.. in DROVES within the last couple years....

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I love it how you guys bring up 40 year old stuff all the time.. to justify that EVERYONE does it.. including YOUR guys.. in DROVES within the last couple years....

Given some people's posting habits, it's a necessity to show, as you say, that BOTH sides are doing wrong.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Given some people's posting habits, it's a necessity to show, as you say, that BOTH sides are doing wrong.

Yeah you really should post some of the Republican corruption and hypocrisy on family values and morality...just once in a while.

It would be a refreshing change of pace for you and Vinny and others.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Given some people's posting habits, it's a necessity to show, as you say, that BOTH sides are doing wrong.

Yeah you really should post some of the Republican corruption and hypocrisy on family values and morality...just once in a while.

It would be a refreshing change of pace for you and Vinny and others.

Hardly needed, when we have you and all the rest of the schadenfreude squad shouting it from the rooftops, now is it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

But if you are SOOOO concerned about it.. why not post it...

By your not posting about it is showing tacit approval based on your voting preferences......that its ok with you.

[billvon 2,434]

>it's the seduction of youngsters that's disgusting...

I actually don't care what age someone is as long as they're not a minor. If they are both legally adults - hey, if they are both into it, good for them.

I _am_ against seduction of someone who works for you, though. That's an abuse of power in many cases.

>as was the standing ovation. Then again, look who was clapping! Ted
>Kennedy!

I fear you are getting your information from FOX News. Ted Kennedy did not give him a standing ovation, nor did any other democrat in congress that day.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

>it's the seduction of youngsters that's disgusting...

I actually don't care what age someone is as long as they're not a minor. If they are both legally adults - hey, if they are both into it, good for them.

I _am_ against seduction of someone who works for you, though. That's an abuse of power in many cases.

>as was the standing ovation. Then again, look who was clapping! Ted
>Kennedy!

I fear you are getting your information from FOX News. Ted Kennedy did not give him a standing ovation, nor did any other democrat in congress that day.

Well, it seems that we have excellent anecdotal evidence that Fox viewers are ill informed, in line with the surveys that show the same thing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But if you are SOOOO concerned about it.. why not post it...

By your not posting about it is showing tacit approval based on your voting preferences......that its ok with you.

Oh, bullshit - by that sort of logic, you support the KKK by not demanding that Kleagle Byrd resign every time you post.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Have you ever read his reasoning for what he did...you may want to...it shoots yours and Vinnies logic for your hatred for the man all to hell.

It was the early 1940's.. he was a very young man...

UNLIKE Halley Barbour or the OTHER myriad of Southern Right Wing politicians who are seen at the UPTOWN KLAN ( C of CC ) rallies... year in and year out..

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

What does immigration have to do with it?

The marriage legally provides certain immigration benefits to non-citizens. For example: eligibility for a green card, eligibility for citizenship after three years of being married, some admission waivers, and so on. Therefore enabling polygamy marriages will have appropriate cosequences from this side as well.

Quote

Bans against interracial marriages were dropped a long time ago because we finally stopped condoning legal racism.

And, I suspect, at that time a lot of people were telling others how good, important, and beneficial to the nation the ban is.
So now we haven't stopped condoning legal sexism yet, and it's about time.

Quote

The difference between my comparison of polygamy and gay marriage to a comparison with interracial marriage is that polygamy is still illegal, and is still not supported by the general public. Big difference, I think.

Unlike polygamy, gay marriages seems to be not illegal. At least I do not know about any penalties for being in such a marriage if you entered it somehow (like traveling to another country where you can get it). And being in polygamy marriage is illegal, like being in interracial marriage was, in some states.

Regarding your "general public" comment, I have no idea why it is ever a concern for general (non-gay) public. I could understand that some people might found gay sex "disgusting". However it should not matter here, as the question is not related to making gay sex legal - it is already legal, even though some people found it disgusting. So far I have never heard any reasonable argument against gay marriage; and all I've ever heard had come from Jesus and the bible (and neither could be considered reasonable arguments).

Quote

So, it matters so much how complicated the divorce process would be?

Yes, it does matter - as it is one of important sides of the marriage. Again, marriage is not a government permission to have sex, or to practice polygamy. If five adult persons decide they want to live together "like a family", and have sex with each others, they do not need a permission for that, and there is no law to stop them.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *