2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Well, i guess that the feigned ignorance from the two (one?) of you finally came to an undeniable head.  Yes, I did waste lots of time on your education, but now that you know you cannot deny the truth (maybe you can, good luck living that fairy-tale!)

Facts are facts, please discuss them with your gay friends and find out the majority will not support your semantic tripe.

No other group that felt discriminated against has escaped through denial of the truth, the homosexual community can only move forward by admitting the truth as it stands today.

I wish you the best of luck; please remember personal attacks on me or on the truth serve nobody.  Good Evening.

Oh, p.s: I do not have a "preferred" way of getting married, I do have a desire to be truthful in order to progress.

Are you positive I am not gay also?

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Caution: duplicate from above, same single point as always:

I may be wrong, but i think i have tracked down your confusion with my point.  Gay individuals have always had the exact same right as straight individuals - the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex.  In your first response to me you seemed to claim a different "definition" of marriage (hence - confusion?).

For many years now, a growing voice from the gay community has sought out an entirely new right - the right to marry a partner of the same sex.  Just as all adults now have the same rights to marriage, so too will all adults have the same equal rights when a law is passed to allow gay marriage. 

I firmly agree with you that we should not force others into our beliefs about marriage (like: forcing the word marriage to be defined in a whole new way that includes gay unions) or (like: forcing people not to seek and be granted the entirely new right of gay marriage).

I believe your emerging right to enter into a gay marriage will not be a problem for anybody, although the bigoted few may claim so.  Whether it will be called gay marriage, civil union, homohabitation, gay union or whatever, the same right will belong to everyone, not just gay people. 

Gay marriage is a new thing.  It is not what marriage is.  In what agenda would anybody seek to define gay marriage as being the same thing as marriage?  Everyone agrees they are different, everyone agrees exactly what the difference is.  I have enjoyed this discussion, and can think of no clearer way to state the patently obvious.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Please read your earlier posts:  you brought up "problems"; I don't even know what they are so I can't voice any concerns about them.  Oh, I just read further- yes, i believe that there will be a law soon guaranteeing people in gay marriages the same rights as people who are married. 

I may be wrong, but i think i have tracked down your confusion with my point.  Gay individuals have always had the exact same right as straight individuals - the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex.  In your first response to me you seemed to claim a different "definition" of marriage (hence - confusion?).

For many years now, a growing voice from the gay community has sought out an entirely new right - the right to marry a partner of the same sex.  Just as all adults now have the same rights to marriage, so too will all adults have the same equal rights when a law is passed to allow gay marriage. 

I firmly agree with you that we should not force others into our beliefs about marriage (like: forcing the word marriage to be defined in a whole new way that includes gay unions) or (like: forcing people not to seek and be granted the entirely new right of gay marriage).

I believe your emerging right to enter into a gay marriage will not be a problem for anybody, although the bigoted few may claim so.  Whether it will be called gay marriage, civil union, homohabitation, gay union or whatever, the same right will belong to everyone, not just gay people. 

Gay marriage is a new thing.  It is not what marriage is.  In what agenda would anybody seek to define gay marriage as being the same thing as marriage?  Everyone agrees they are different, everyone agrees exactly what the difference is.  I have enjoyed this discussion, and can think of no clearer way to state the patently obvious.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

jkpotter:

Well, after reading the "dumb" comment and poorly veiled attacks another poster made, along with a few blatantly false claims of what I had said, I made an attempt to cordially clarify myself.

My point is simple: gay marriage and marriage are different.  Each of my posts seeks to illuminate, but probably only allows for confusion of, that one simple fact. 

From early childhood we are all aware that boys and girls (men and women) are different.  It is a fundamental and immutable fact.  Marriage occurs between a husband and a wife.  Gay marriage occurs between two husbands or two wives. Again, fundamental.

Methinks the second definition of discriminate is to distinguish accurately.  I believe I have discriminated the difference between marriage and gay marriage.  We simply can not say they are the same.  They are not the same.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Well Scott, to sum up without ridiculing anyone else's posts,

Comparing a false or unprovable statement to discrimination against black people does not mean the false statement is discrimination or evidence of bigotry.

I must not have heard the entire show, since I never heard Ms G. say that a gay union was inferior to marriage, only that it was not marriage.  All apologies if I missed that part (I tuned in rather late).  Same sex marriages are a fact, and I'm sure most people agree that many gay marriages are superior to many marriages.  I realize I am in no way a judge or arbiter of good/bad or superior/inferior.

Some people like their cheesecake with blueberries.  Most people would admit that it is a blueberry cheesecake, or perhaps a cheesecake with blueberries.  Even if you shorten the name and just call it a cheesecake, there is no hiding the fact that it has blueberries.

Gay individuals have always had the right to marry, same as everybody else - but why would they?  Everybody knows gay people choose relationships with people of the same sex, instead.

Where, oh where, is this claimed "discrimination"?  Since all individuals have the same rights, heterosexual people could conceivably enter into a gay marriage - again, what would be the point?

People who are intolerant of what marriage is certainly have that right, but it does not change any facts.  Perhaps the fundamental challenge is that some people don't understand that gay people have the EXACT same rights as straight people in marriage, and that gay marriage (formally recognized by church or state) is a new thing.  Since you don't think that gay marriage is the same as marriage, I can tell you are not one of these people.  So where's the discrimination?  Gay marriage should have EXACTLY all of the same rights and priveleges as marriage.  That does not mean we can claim that it IS the same, in fact I think all I have read on this thread recognizes this one simple fact.

Perhaps you misunderstood me or mistook me for another poster.  I firmly believe gay marriages are and should be permitted.  They are exactly that - gay marriages - and should have all of the same rights as marriages have.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

My replies were to your last two sentences 11:21

"Neither of our opinions should be legislated,"  (r)   A proposed delegislation of marriage?

"especially when that causes such problems in others' lives."  (r) I believe problems get worse when rights are not guaranteed.

 "We should live our lives as we see fit, and stop short of thinking we know best for others."  (r)  Never would I believe I know best for anyone (I hope)- nor even myself.  It's the journey that counts.

Personally, I'm not that concerned with losing rights or "problems" caused by other people's marriages.  I understand this entire issue to be about gaining more rights (as defined by law, church, society, etcetera and whatever) and I do not understand what "problems in others lives" are being caused by individual rights. 

Mutual respect to you - I look forward to checking back here in a few hours.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Discriminating against married people by thinking/stating that same sex unions are the same as marriage is kind of like thinking/stating it is okay to discriminate against black people because you can prove they are actually inferior, rather then merely disliking them willy-nilly.  Neither of these claims are provable or accepted as truth.

Gay individuals have always had the right to marry, same as everybody else - but why would they?  Everybody knows gay people choose relationships with people of the same sex, instead.

Where, oh where, is this claimed "discrimination"?

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

A proposed delegislation of marriage?

I believe problems get worse when rights are not guaranteed.

Never would I believe I know best for anyone (I hope)- nor even myself.  It's the journey that counts.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

intolerance (my def.) = a full scale from lacking respect to denying existence.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have used "the truth" but rather "the definition."  Rights belong to the individual is my understanding, and not the couple.  If a couple had the right to marry, there would be a third person.

Every adult individual has always had the right to marry.  Perhaps the future is a new amendment, adding the right to smarry?

It is so amazing that all of us who claim bigotry seem blind to our own.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

The Oxford American dictioary defines BIGOTRY as: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The intolerance and hate expressed towards the vast majority of people who understand the meaning of marriage by those who wish to change the definition of marriage is astounding.

People who choose to be gay have always had the right to get married, although the resulting marriage would be a sham since to be married one chooses a partner of the opposite sex.

If a man wants a partner he can introduce as his "husband" that's perfectly understandable, but the opinions held by individuals who make that choice do not warrant the proposed bigoted change to the definition of marriage. 

Ask anyone, even a child- unless indoctrinated by the new culture that devalues marriage by trying to change it's meaning, the responder will naturally tell the truth (for the reality challenged: a man marries a wife and a woman marries a husband.)  It's a laughable proposal to claim anything different - we might as well teach black is red, wet is dry, and up is down!

Personally, I "tolerate", accept, invite, respect and revere many people in homosexual relationships. None are married, though some are ssmarried.

If you believe an untruth yet still are reading this great articulation of the beliefs of the overwhelming majority, let me reiterate: Commitments between same sex partners are fine, wonderful, understandable and even normal these days: however, they are not, cannot be, and thus never will be marriages. 

The ONLY problem we all debate is the illegitimization of the word marriage.  Let's all agree to tell the truth, these unions are ssmarriages (pronounced smarriages).  Conveniently, the honest description of the proposed unions begins with s s, which means same sex but also references social security rights, tying in to the best arguments ever made by same sex supporters. 

If i chose to be gay, I would be comfortable, proud and honest about my decision, but I would never lie to myself, my children, or the world by claiming marriage. . . it just isn't so.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context