Opinions on House Bill 99

Sussex County Online User Forums: Sussex County Delaware Discussion Forum: Opinions on House Bill 99
By Eric Magill on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 08:26 am:

What is your opinion of Delaware House Bill 99, the bill designed to prevent discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals in the state of Delaware?

By Douglas Marshall-Steele on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 09:55 am:

HB 99 would protect all Delawareans whether they be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual and whether that orientation is real or perceived by the discriminator. If you are a Delawarean and you have a sexual orientation, HB 99 protects you. What's the big deal? Wisconsin has had such a law since 1982 and 12 other states have since adopted them. "It's nice being first?" Sorry, Delaware needs to play catch-up with this one....

By Deaver on Saturday, January 26, 2002 - 12:17 pm:

Pass the darned thing! (Straight here.)

By twilliams on Monday, January 28, 2002 - 11:14 am:

Hmmm....

Could someone explain to me why we need the government to "protect us". It seems that if I enter an establishment that treats me in a manner that I do not like, I do not frequent that establishment. If the establishment does this to enough people they will go under because of a lack of customers.

This bill is just another example of governemnt intrusion into private enterprise.

By Alyssa Abernathy on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 09:41 am:

I personally think that the House Bill 99 is outrageous! Its not right at all we need to throw this bill away!

By anonymous on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 10:46 am:

why?

By Maat on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 12:15 pm:

I don't see this as a Bill promoting any ONE aspect of our community or State. As Ms. Venables rightly states, this is not equal rights, or gay rights...it's human rights. As employers, we have employed people from all walks of life, all genders, all life-styles, all ethnicity...we could have chosen, if we had a mind, to have limited our staff to caucasian, democratic lesbians of absolutely no religious affiliation, who smoke but don't drink. Sound outrageous? You betcha! So, maybe if this Bill does NOT pass, that's exactly what we should do. This bill does, in fact, protect all rights but too many are only seeing what they want to see. Pass it, for crying out loud!

By twilliams on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 01:10 pm:

"if we had a mind, to have limited our staff to caucasian, democratic lesbians of absolutely no religious affiliation, who smoke but don't drink. Sound outrageous?"

No, not really. If I am business owner I should have the authority to staff that business as I see fit. If I own a restaurant, I should be able to dictae the type of customers I serve. After all they are my businesses. The free market will take care of who makes it and who doesn't.

By John Lennox on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 12:23 am:

twilliams apparently fails to grasp that even though he would have the right to hire, fire and possibly serve who he chooses, that is exactly the attitude that still exists in areas of the country that still want women pregnant and barefoot, blacks to go away, and only their own white superior male types to have the power. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to allow equal protection under the law to offset that backwoods attitude people like twilliams still possess.
He is also probably a CHRISTIAN who thinks that GAYS should die and go to wherever. Anything is OK that keeps his white straight male self in power and in control. The fact that his type is no longer in full control of many aspects of modern life probably make him terribly incensed and irate, so any chance available to keep a social minority in it's place is probably quite acceptable.
The fact that there is so much homophobia that abounds in the white male sector tends to make me believe that the actual number may be much higher, only due to the fact that the concept of homosexuality has been made into this horrendous sexual deviant behavior by much of Christian and religious history. The fact that most males life is in most ways connected to or centered on their male member tends to allow for the concept of homosexuality to be present in their minds, especially if they get very attached in some way to any other male (usually) outside their family. We all have had those thoughts. How we are influenced by outside forces tend to influence our decision on how to deal with any unstraight feelings within us.
Bottom line, passing HB 99 is a socially conscious act that confirms that there is if we are one nation under GOD, INDIVISIBLE, then should we all not be treated equally, INDIVISIBLY, with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL? This bill helps insure that all people are equally protected, because as twilliams demonstrated, that without this bill, there will always be the likelihood that inequities will continue to occur.

By twilliams on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 08:44 am:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to allow equal protection under the law"

Wrong. The 14th Amemdment to the Constitution did that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was really an unnecessary piece of legislation.

"He is also probably a CHRISTIAN..."

Yes, I am. But that has nothing to do with my feelings on this bill (believe it or not)

"that GAYS should die and go to wherever."

Not that they should die, but when they die, they as would any other unrepentant sinner, would go to hell.

"white straight male self"

You don't know that. You are placing a label on me becasue of one comment I made about business being allowed to control their own establishments. Now who's beig prejudicial here?

"so any chance available to keep a social minority in it's place is probably quite acceptable."

You see. this is where you are confused. If this bill stated that is was okay to discriminate against a particular social group, I would be against it. Even if it is perfectly acceptable and common to do so. I am against this bill because it intereferes with free enterprise. It takes the decision making ability away from the propritor and places in the hands of bureaucrats. That is what I'm against.

"Bottom line, passing HB 99 is a socially conscious act that confirms that there is if we are one nation under GOD, INDIVISIBLE, then should we all not be treated equally, INDIVISIBLY, with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL?"

You see, that is just a way of making us feel all warm and fuzzy about things. When really, you are talking about socialism. And guess what, as evidened by the former USSR, socialism does not work. So why do we keep trying to put more and more social control into place, if we already know what the end result would be?

"there will always be the likelihood that inequities will continue to occur."

Iniquities will occur more in a socialist society because there is more reason to undermine the system. If you leave things alone and let the businesses care for themselves guess what will happen? Simple competition will eliminate most of the barriers which are sought to be "removed" by this legislation.

By Francine on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 01:45 pm:

...concept of homosexuality has been made into this horrendous sexual deviant behavior by much of Christian and religious history.

I'm not the least bit christian (I'm an atheist), and I think homosexuality is quite a horrendous, sexual, deviant behavior. It's not just religion that causes people to feel that way. It's more like good morals. We're not talking about a person born to a certain race, sex or ethnicity. We're talking about behaviors. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuality is unnacceptable behavior. Just as I wouldn't allow other unnacceptable behavior in my establishment. I wouldn't allow stumbling drunks or people using loud profanity. That's all behavior that creates certain atmosphere. A business owner should have the right to create whatever atmosphere they want in their business. Find a place with an atmosphere you enjoy, and go there or do business with them.


We all have had those thoughts.

WRONG! I'm not sure where you got that information, unless you took a poll from all homosexuals.


...attitude people like twilliams still possess.

I kinda like it. It's nice to know that people still stand for good morals.


I couldn't agree more with true free enterprise. Not only should you have the right to run your business as you see fit, but a customer should have the right to patronize an establishment where they feel comfortable. Not all establishments should have to make all people welcome. If everyone has the right to go everywhere, will specialty clubs, groups, and establishments still exist? Will teenagers be allowed to join senior centers and the AARP? Will the NAACP be forced to accept whites? Would under 21 clubs have to let my father in? Eventually, they would be forced to in the socialistic society, where government dictates how businesses and groups are run.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 01:52 pm:

I don't want my son to go to school and have a gay teacher as a role model. I don't want him to think it's socially acceptable. What about my rights as a parent. I don't want my son to be "educated" by the mentally disturbed. Our bodies weren't even made to function like that. Why don't these people stop trying to make society accept them and just accept the fact that they need mental help.

By Sc4life on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 09:23 pm:

i personally don't think it is any of our business what there sex life is at home..they aren't hurting anyone..and im pretty sure that schools won't hire a gay teacher if they act gay.. but when they act like ordinary everyday people i think they should get whatever job they want...i think people just need to grow up and accept the fact that there are different people then just u in the world and everyone is different in many ways..saying that gays should be allowed to do this or this..is just like say blacks shouldn't do this or that...u are bringing hate into the world and kids shouldn't have to grow up in such a world like this...

By twilliams on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 07:46 am:

"im pretty sure that schools won't hire a gay teacher if they act gay"

They have to. Teachers are State employees and there is already a clause in the state guidelines that prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

"saying that gays should be allowed to do this or this..is just like say blacks shouldn't do this or that."

No it isn't. A black person is black, period. You can see it plain as day and they cannot do anything to change that. However, homosexuality is manifested by behaviors and behaviors can be changed and controlled. A person has the ability to choose with whom they have sex. They do not have the ability to choose thier race.

"u are bringing hate into the world"

I do not hate anyone. While I do not agree with the gay lifestyle, I do not begrudge anyone who claims that for themselves. However, what I am against is the government imposing idealogical restrictions on private enterprise. If a business wants to pass policies within thier own organization, much like the state has done, then that is great. That is the level where these decisions should be made. Private enterpirse in America is a great thing the only limitations to its success are those placed upon it by government.



P.S. Thanks for joining in on this discussion, I assume you are in high school or just out becasue of your posts in the sports forum. I'm glad to see you have the courage to state your opinion on such a controversial topic.

By Sc4life on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 09:37 am:

there was a gay teacher in my school,nobody cared.it's not like he was going around flirting with guy teachers, he was just doing his job and thats it...i would like to say that the reason i am joining in this conversation is because my uncle was gay and i loved him no matter what.. i treated him with respect because he deserved top be treated with respect no matter what his life style is. i think that people need to grow up and realize that people are different..i can understand u being grossed out if gay people walk down the street making out and groping eachother..but i have not seen one gay couple do that yet.and if we can walk down the street holding hands with our girlfriends or boyfriends y can't they? u can't get rid of gays so y even bother trying..and if u are worried about your kids being around gays , then sit down with them when they are old enough to understand u and have a long talk about gays..but people shouldn't hate other people just becase they are different.if a straight person owns a restaurant then let them surve who they want to surve..but if a gay couple comes into the place u don't have to tell them to get out all ignorant just explain y u don't want to surve them then im sre they will leave..but u don't have to be ignorant they are human beings too they need to be treated with respect just like the rest of us..

By twilliams on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:48 pm:

Well put Sc4life.

But if this law passes the restaurant owner will be forced to serve them.

We often speak out loudly against the legislation of morality. We don't want others to tell us how to feel about certain topics. Well, that is just what this law does. It legislates morality by imposing the morals of government on those without morals.

By LEWES GRANDPA on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:54 pm:

TRY TAKING A WALK IN REHOBOTH BEACH, YOUNGSTER. YOU CAN'T GO THERE WITHOUT SEEING GAYS FLAUNTING AND GROPING. EVEN WORSE THAN STRAIGHT COUPLES. WHY DO THEY HAVE TO ACT LIKE THAT. ITS LEWD. I GO ALL THE WAY TO OCEAN CITY WITH MY GRANDCHILDREN BECAUSE OF IT. IF THEY WEREN'T ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE THAN THEY WOULDN'T FLAUNT IT SO MUCH.

By Sc4life on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 03:31 pm:

they prolly go to rehoboth because they can..and yeah i may be a youngster grandpa.. but believe it or not us youngsters like to state our oppinion also..and maby they don't think it is wrong to hold hands or kiss in public,i go to rehoboth everyday in the summer and i have not yet seen a gay couple groping eachother in public.all i have seen them doing is hold hands and hug something little like that..they are not doing anyone else any harm by holding hands and maby give there partner a kiss on the cheak.im not saying being gay is right or wrong all i am saying is just let them live there own lives no one says u have to stare at a gay couple walking down the street juust turn your head..any gramps i might be young but it seems to me i have a little more respect different life styles..u just need to get used to it and live your own life..

By Sc4life on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 03:34 pm:

i just have one question if u are making money off gay people when they come into your bar or where,y wouldn't u want to serve them..they need to eat just like the rest of us do.everyone treats them like there some kind of animal.they are human beings..treat them with respect..

By twilliams on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 03:39 pm:

"i just have one question if u are making money off gay people when they come into your bar or where,y wouldn't u want to serve them."

Exactly, Sc4life, let the free market handle the situation. The only thing that is accomplished by passing legislation that forces the issue is it calls attention to the differences, rather than allowing them to be forgotten about.

By Sc4life on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 03:43 pm:

if u own the place, and u don't want to surve them then don't..i feel that it should be your decission to surve gays or not..but all i am trying to say is that people are ignorant when gays come into the resturants..just let them do there own thing eat and get out..what harm are they doing there?

By Sc4life on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 04:04 pm:

and gramps they are no dofferent from the straight couples who walk down the board walk..straight couples kiss infront of everyone all the time nobody says a word about them.just because they are straight doesn't make it right..this is the year 2002 it's different now.people are different...

By twilliams on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 04:29 pm:

"i feel that it should be your decission to surve gays or not."

Thank you. That's how I feel too.

"but all i am trying to say is that people are ignorant when gays come into the resturants"

Maybe so, but don't we also have a right to be ignorant?



"and gramps they are no dofferent from the straight couples who walk down the board walk"

Yes they are, they have chosen to have a different type of partner.

"couples kiss infront of everyone all the time nobody says a word about them"

Yes they do.

"because they are straight doesn't make it right "

True.

"people are different..."

Wait, I thought you said, "they are no dofferent from the straight couples"

Which is it? Different or not?

By Sc4life on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 10:28 pm:

they are different in the way that they like the same sex..but they are not different because they are still human beings and they have feelings too.

By Sc4life on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 10:42 pm:

and what are we getting accomplished by arguing about this on here?

By Francine on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:30 am:

"if u own the place, and u don't want to surve them then don't..i feel that it should be your decission to surve gays or not.."

"..just let them do there own thing eat and get out..what harm are they doing there? "

Which is it? You seem to be a little confused or unsettled in how you REALLY feel about this.

By LEWES GRANPA on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 02:52 pm:

YOU DON'T HAVE TO STARE TO SEE IT. MY WIFE AND I CAN'T EVEN WALK THE BOARDWALK LATE AT NIGHT. WHAT WE'VE SEEN ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION IS TOO VULGAR TO POST. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO TURN THEIR HEADS FROM SOMETHING THAT'S WRONG. MAYBE THAT'S WHY YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED ALL THE INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR. IN CASE YOU DON'T KNOW, LEWDNESS AND SODOMY ARE INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR. THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM IN THIS WORLD TODAY. PEOPLE THINK THEY SHOULD JUST TURN THEIR HEAD AND PRETEND THE BAD THINGS AREN'T THERE. IF YOU WERE OLD ENOUGH TO RAISE CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN YOU'D KNOW YOU CAN'T TELL A YOUNG CHILD TO TURN THEIR HEAD AND REALLY EXPECT THEM TO DO IT. AND THEY START PICKING UP THINGS LONG BEFORE THEY ARE EVER OLD ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN IT TO THEM. YOU SURELY HAVE THE RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION AT ANY AGE, BUT EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE TO AGREE. AND AS FAR AS YOU THINKING YOU HAVE MORE RESPECT--HAVING RESPECT FOR SOMEONE IS A FAR CRY FROM JUST ACCEPTING THEM. MUCH OF WHAT YOU HAVE SAID LEAVES NO INDICATION OF RESPECT FOR WHO YOU SEEM TO BE DEFENDING.

By Sc4life on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 07:49 pm:

shut up..what i ment was.if u own the place do what u want.but when u do surve them if u choose to they aren't doing any harm they are just eating and leving like everyone else does.i know how i feel i just prolly don't explain it in old people terms...SORRY

By Sc4life on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 08:12 pm:

gramps, i have respect for everyone.and obviousely u don't know me i have a kid alright! and i am not really saying that u should turn your head and ignore it..u guys walk down the board walk looking for gays probabily.i did not say anyone had to agree with what i am saying i am just stating my oppinion..just like everyone else on here is.and yeah if gays are all over eachother in public that is wrong,just like if stright people are all over eachother in public that is wrong also..but there are alot of good gays out there that care about peoples feeling towards them.it just seems like to me that alot of people think all gays are bad or something. what i am trying to say is that not all are..i am not defending one person in general,i am just stating my oppinion like everyone else is..just because i am younger then u does not men that i do not have any expirence with gays .. my uncle was gay and, he was not the kind of person to hang all over his boyfriend in public.u make every gay person seem as though they are a bad person..u can explain to your kids whatever u want to explain to them about gays but they are always going to be around no matter what people just need to face it...and if u think i have no respect ur are dead wrong i have respect.. i have respect for gays. and also you,but when people see gays walking together y do they have to use such language. such as, faget and stuff..thats just plain out ignorant..i mean u mine as well call a black person nigro if u have the mouth to say such words..and most people say that stuff around there kids and grand kids.what are u teaching them there???NOTHING but ignorance on your part...i am not saying that anyone on here has used such words.. and if ur kids pick up on things thatt gays do then obviousely u did not do a good enugh job teahing them..

By Negshrub on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:35 am:

This is all very interestin but I am a bit confused about a few points already made. Somebody said that they should have the right as a business owner to pick and choose who they serve. If history is correct, it was business owners like that that made the Civil Rights Act necessary in the first place. Whether it was Democratic grandstanding or whatnot, it was obviously a very necessary move to insure that if a business is in the public domain, that the PUBLIC has the right to access the establishment or not. Any GOOD business PERSON knows that the larger your customer base, the more money you can make. Also, to the person who professed to being an athiest-since an atheist does not believe in god, or any religion, then there shouldn't be any concept of being immoral, since most of what is considered to be immoral came from the bible/religion. However, not ALL religions feel that way.
I come from a religious background, but we were taught in civics class the importance of having separation between church and state. And back then,it seemed that churches were not trying to stick their noses into everything. There may have been more people concerned about living their own lives, and actually trying to live in the loving way that Jesus supposedly demonstrated.
I used to have respect for Billy Graham, until recently, when I heard a sound bite from a tape between him and President Nixon. There was no error, and his message was not twisted in any way. He said that he believed the Jewish people will make this country fall, and that there must be a way to keep them down. The same thing was done with the blacks, women, American Indians, Irish, Italians, and now Arabs and Arab-Americans. Our country was founded on some well-intended laws and policies, but by no means was there any period of time where someone wasn't chosen to be oppressed. So go ahead, continue the same behaviors, and we'll see how GOD-blessed this country REALLY will be. When you stick your flag on your car, on your BUSINESS, or even on your bass, remember what it stands for ---WE THE PEOPLE, UNITED, LIBERATED, supposedly FREE FROM OPPRESSION. Will you force a few to fall and divide us, or will you stand united? If you choose not to, being a Christian, you should know what God feels about hypocrites, that they are full of dead men's stench. And in the bible, God abhors hypocrisy. So go ahead and pray to your God, but from what I can see, is that you pray to a hateful, vengeful God that doesn't deserve the time it took to pass the misconstrued words previously written to the tattered, hardly able to be read, and or missing, scrolls that were then transferred to a crude book made by kings and queens (with the same attitude you have), to keep their constituents, the peasants, in order and in control at their whim, but not to stop there, other kings and queens, add a pope here and there, had to branch off and write their own book, other fairy tales, because they weren't happy with the words in the other book. So just as I wouldn't trust a person like you to prepare my food, I wouldn't trust a king and queen with the words of a truly good prophet. Be careful what God you pray to. The God you pray to is a gold idol, owned by a person with 10 houses, billions of dollars, deceitful, and if I were to use words in the bible, the anti-christ, or false god. If you truly are christian, sell all your possession, become a monk, work in soup kitchens, devote all your time to helping people, as your Jesus would have. Then you will be able to call yourself a CHRIST-ian.

By LEWES GRANDPA on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:34 am:

BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE A CHILD AND BEING OLD ENOUGH TO RAISE ONE.

By twilliams on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:39 am:

"If you truly are christian,..."

First, let me address this hogwash. As a Christian I find you comments disingenuous. Whils some are called to do just that, most are called to witness in different ways. Whether it be the teacher who has a bible study after school or the police officer who leads worship services in the pastors absence. Still, there are those who are called into full-time pastorship. You do not have to sell all your posessions to be a Christian, you just have to follow God wherever he calls you.

Now back to the main topic at hand.

"shut up.."

C'mon Sc4life, you have demostrated better communication skills than that. There is no need for that here.

"they are still human beings and they have feelings too."

Feelings are irrelevant. We cannot be in the business in passing laws that restrict the freedoms of one, to protect the feelings of another.

"..it was obviously a very necessary move.."

How? All it did was to call attention to the differences and create more civil unrest. I am certain that ,if left alone, the "problem" would have remidied itself. After all, even you said "Any GOOD business PERSON knows that the larger your customer base, the more money you can make."}

So, by passing laws like this we ensure the success of "bad business people" because we force them to serve those whom they otherwise would not. We force the expansion of the customer base and ensure that these business do not fail despite any "bad policy" they may have.

I wont go on and comment on all your rantings about the church and Christianity because, frankly, I couldn't really get a feel for which side you are on. You sound very confused.

By LEWES GRANDPA on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:41 am:

".. and if ur kids pick up on things thatt gays do then obviousely u did not do a good enugh job teahing them.. "

I THOUGHT YOU SAID THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH GAYS.

By Sc4life on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:42 am:

negshrub,i see where u are comming from..i learned alot from u.. thanks

By Anonymous on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:44 am:

Sc4life isn't even intelligent enough to write, spell, and use grammar properly. How could he or she have an intelligent opinion on much of anything. Maybe a trip back to the second grade would be beneficial.

By Sc4life on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:47 am:

are u saying that im not old enough to raise a child??hmm let me think...i am raising one now aren't i..u are right i said there was nothing wrong with gays..people should be able to choose there own life style, and that is exatically what they are doing..it's not wrong to be gay..but it is wrong to be all over your partner in public.believe it or not there are gays that do not hang all over there partner!!that is the kind of gay i am talking about that makes it not wrong to be gay..

By Sc4life on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:52 am:

excuse me anonyomus!!! but comming on here and saying that kind of stuff makes u look not intelligent....don't u have better things to do then worry about how i spell??i am probabily younger then and i am acting more mature then that.and the reason i miss spell things is because i am in a hurry and when i type fast i miss spell things...so how about u grow up..

By Negshrub on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 11:29 am:

twilliams So, what is your god inspired calling? Is it sort of like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker,and Bush? Let's face it: you've been called by a christian {wrong} right lobbyist, and THEY have called you to do their bidding, not god. Many know that the christian right is part of the MAIN TOPIC AT HAND. I am very well read, and I can see through untainted eyes that gays do need equal protection under the law. Gays are not treated fairly, and they need to become much, much more active then they are now, what with all the current witch hunts, and reintroduction of the crusades by people with hateful reincarnate mindsets and bigotry. It did not work then and it especially will not work now in this country, and that is why our Founding Fathers were adamant about the separation between church and state. They had to run from other countries who thought THEY were disgusting, and should just shrivel up and die, or stay and follow the majority's so-called NORM.

By Francine on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:21 pm:

"Also, to the person who professed to being an athiest-since an atheist does not believe in god, or any religion, then there shouldn't be any concept of being immoral, since most of what is considered to be immoral came from the bible/religion."

I must completely disagree. Functional societies existed long before structured religion and the bible. Most animals are naturally good natured and I've never seen any in a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or even reading the bible or kuran.

Webster's definition:
immoral-not moral
moral-1)of or relating to principles of right and wrong 2)conforming to a standard of right behavior 3)virtuous; righteous; noble; ethical


I don't believe that makes any mention of the bible or religion.

Just because I do not believe in a supreme being or follow a religion does not mean that I have no concept of being immoral. I do not need ecclesiastical direction to form a sense of right and wrong. The world was not total anarchy before christianity or formally practiced religion, or people could have never survived in groups. I don't think you can accurately judge one's sense of right and wrong simply by nothing other their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

By Negshrub on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:00 pm:

Francine I respectfully disagree with you. There were many studies done on nature verses nurture. If you were born into a culture unlike our own, and you were not exposed to other people expressing eww, and yuck, or mmm, and yummy to certain things,how would you have developed your own point of view? A human being will resort to it's most innate basic instincts when left alone without any outside influence. That makes your statements about being both an atheist and a moral person to be a contradiction, and cannot be validated. Because like most of the world, I live in a societal setting, I am fully aware that my thoughts and ideas will always be affected by my exposure to any culture and/or country. That is why parents, teachers, piers, and socities as a whole will always teach the CHILDREN at a very young age, to insure that their sense of right and wrong will forever haunt them, as it haunts myself. But I'm proud to be an atheist, and I like you can overcome what was thrown at me. It seems as though you are half way there. Good for you!

Francine*** I must completely disagree. Functional societies existed long before structured religion and the bible. Most animals are naturally good natured and I've never seen any in a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or even reading the bible or kuran.

1. How far back do you go, history shows societies were always linked to some idol, sun god, greek god, or living human god etc. You must have a time machine.
2. I don't get the most animals thing, but most atheists I know believe in evolution, and I've seen quite a few of us in churchs etc. Humans ARE animals.


****Francine Webster's definition:
immoral-not moral
moral-1)of or relating to principles of right and wrong 2)conforming to a standard of right behavior 3)virtuous; righteous; noble; ethical

I don't believe that makes any mention of the bible or religion.

No not directly, but did you conform to the standard of believing in a supreme being? From what I have read about you, NO. ***********Francine I'm not the least bit christian (I'm an atheist)
Francine are you immoral? Would you not be considered immoral to SOME god FEARIN christians?
You could have gone to the dictionary and typed every meaning of the words I wrote, but you have to connect those words with other words to get the full meaning dear. As far as I'm concerned people should not let their religious MORAL right attitudes affect the rights of other people with different morals such as ourselves. I don't believe you are atheist. You've given yourself away in many of your comments. From what I've learned, some people will include themselves in a group of people who would be unexpected to disagree or agree with an issue that is controversial. Are you part of any atheist organization? If you don't feel that I am being rude, let me know. Which one? We don't know your name.

By Megha717 on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:40 pm:

I think you're right, Anonymous. She can't spell. And no, she shouldn't be voicing her opinions on these topics first if she doesn't have all of her facts straight, and second if she can't spell them. And, since when do you have a child? You're in 11th grade. Your mouth gets you in some holes your butt can't get you out of. And have more respect for your elders than to call them "gramps." "Sir" would be more polite and wouldn't make you look like such an idiot.

By Sc4life on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:59 pm:

anyone is allowed to voice their oppinion on here...if they stick to the topic!!and gramps got smart with me so i think u need to stay out of it.obviousely u don't know me as well as u think..

By twilliams on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 08:14 am:

"you've been called by a christian {wrong} right lobbyist, and THEY have called you to do their bidding, not god."

You can't even pretend to judge me and my life, no matter how "well read" you think you are.

"gays do need equal protection under the law. "

They have it the 14th Amendment grants it. But here is where people get mixed up. Equal protection only means that justice is administered equally. It means that opportunity is not removed. It doesn't mean you force acceptance of certain behaviors. I'll give you a very simplistic example of just how ridiculous this is. A restaurant has a dress code, No shirt, No shoes, No service. Why should that restaurant be forced to serve me if I choose not to wear shoes? THey shouldn't to propose such would be preposterous. But that's just hat this bill is doing, it is forcing the acceptance of certain behaviors. Face it, regardless of the reason behind it, sexual preference manifests itself through behavior, that is why the bill read "whether real or percieved". This bill stands to set a precedent that businesses no not have the right to expect certain behaviors form thier clientele.


"separation between church and state"

You say that morals have their foundation in religion. I agree. Well, this bill promotes morality. It forces people to accept all types of sexual orientation and not discriminate against any one of them. "Love thy brother like thyself" Well then if this bill imposes the morals of the "government" on the "people" then wouldn't it clearly violate the rule of separation of church and state?

By Alyssa Abernathy on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 12:02 pm:

First of all, this is not Jerry Springer, who cares if someone spelt a word wrong,both of you need to get a life, and keep this more civilized, this is not the spelling bee.

By Negshrub on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 07:55 pm:

****Twilliams They have it the 14th Amendment grants it. But here is where people get mixed up. Equal protection only means that justice is administered equally. It means that opportunity is not removed. It doesn't mean you force acceptance of certain behaviors.

1. The 14th amendment failed to help in many other human rights issues, and it is failing to protect gays as well.
2. Would it be Ok to force gays into the closet, and once again try to adhere to some lame excuse for normal behavior?

*****Twiallims I'll give you a very simplistic example of just how ridiculous this is. A restaurant has a dress code, No shirt, No shoes, No service. Why should that restaurant be forced to serve me if I choose not to wear shoes? THey shouldn't to propose such would be preposterous. But that's just hat this bill is doing, it is forcing the acceptance of certain behaviors. Face it, regardless of the reason behind it, sexual preference manifests itself through behavior, that is why the bill read "whether real or percieved". This bill stands to set a precedent that businesses no not have the right to expect certain behaviors form thier clientele.

1. Your example was TOO simplistic. I wouldn't like to see someone with no shirt or shoes in a restaurant either, but if I saw two men, or women together, and perceived them to be gay, I would just say so what! I disagree with your interpretation, and your assumption that this bill would allow anyone, not just gays, to come in a businees prance around without shoes, and shirts, but what you mean is show some type of affection toward each other. Frankly, I don't want to see anyone do that in public, but I see straight couples do it. Gay people should have the same right, and if a business oks a certain type of behavior for some, they must be fair to all. If that behavior is not permitted then it should apply to all people. If a person were picked out of a crowd and treated wrongfully because of the way they look, the pickers are in need of major maturity. Is the way they LOOK also one of your concerns, because if thats the case you should take a look at the other bumkins you see.

*****Twilliams You say that morals have their foundation in religion. I agree. Well, this bill promotes morality.

1. Yes it does, but not in relation to the bible. Gay people need to be ethically treated. They should not suffer because some people view them as disgusting, just because they're different.

2. I firmly believe this issue has to do with intolerence toward anything, or anybody who isn't chrriiissstian.

3. I firmly believe some small businesses and little back hills churchs decided to get together and act or behave badly, unlike their jesus.{as documented many times}
I know for a fact their are many decent minded people for the bill also, and they seem to follow the word of their god or conscience.

The bill should have been brought to the floor of the Senate, and the peoples voice should have been heard by all of the Senate members.

All people should be more concerned about how decisions that affect us ALL are kept in the closet, instead of who's having sex with who, and how it's going to affect their shallow little worlds.

By Sc4life on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 11:35 pm:

hmmm and where did u come in during this conversation?

By Sc4life on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 11:44 pm:

anyway..i am still sticking with my oppinion..but i just wanted to let everyone know that u guys have some very interesting points being made..i really do learn alot from this forum.

By Sc4life on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 11:48 pm:

negshrub, i agree with u totally.

By twilliams on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 08:08 am:

"and it is failing to protect gays as well."

How is it not? Certainly you don't mean because they get "picked on"? The purpose of our government, although it is rapidly moving in that direction, should not be to act as a nanny when people don't play nice.


"Would it be Ok to force gays into the closet,"

I don't want to force anything on anyone. But we all have to be responsible for our own choices and beahviors. We also have to be cognizant of the consequenses to those actions, good and bad.

"what you mean is show some type of affection toward each other"

That's not really what I meant. Perhaps it would help if I used another example. Say I refused service to a skin head or a Ku Klux Klan member, is it not my right to set a certain mood for my establishment? If I percieve their presence to be contrary to the atmosphere I am trying to make, I should have the right to remove them.

"Is the way they LOOK also one of your concerns,"

Hmmm... Could be.


"because if thats the case you should take a look at the other bumkins you see."

Ah, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?

"Gay people need to be ethically treated."

Yes they do, but it is not the place of government for force ethics on anyone, no more than it is right for the governemnt to force religion on anyone.

"I firmly believe this issue has to do with intolerence toward anything, or anybody who isn't chrriiissstian."

To some yes, to others no.

By Negshrub on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 07:06 pm:

*****Sc4life thank you. I'm glad you were able to learn something from this unresolved dialogue. May you live long and prosper.

*****twilliams I don't want to force anything on anyone. But we all have to be responsible for our own choices and beahviors. We also have to be cognizant of the consequenses to those actions, good and bad.

1.My, my! Do you really think someone would choose to behave in a gay way, and then have to tolerate such a sad state of affairs. I know I wouldn't.
2. The religious right is trying to push the idea that being gay is a choice, and I believe them to be wrong.

*****twilliams Perhaps it would help if I used another example. Say I refused service to a skin head or a Ku Klux Klan member,
*****twilliams How is it not? Certainly you don't mean because they get "picked on"?

1. I think you would think twice about asking a skin head, or kkk dude to leave your business. If hate mongers visited your business, and a gay couple was there too, then you decided to ask both types to leave; the gays would be beat up {if they were meek}, and then the hate mongers would come back to torch your business. Then the haters will go to a local loving church to pay homage to their dear god, and ask for forgiveness again and again.....

2. YOU are picking on them too. HOW can you deny that?

Twilliams There is no law to protect gays as of now, so why don't you put a sign outside your business, and make it quite clear who you would accept there. I guarantee you'll see a drastic loss in your profits, or you'll be out of business.
The so called president of this ahmmm United States doesn't even want to stop trade to Cuba anymore, because they want more money, and they see the need for a global economy. A shrewd business person thinks that way.

*****twilliams Yes they do, but it is not the place of government to force ethics on anyone, no more than it is right for the government to force religion on anyone.

1. These issues arise because SOME christians in power always have managed to force feed their views, and I for one don't want any evidence of that in our government. For example No reference to the ten commandments on our court houses, no school prayer, no bias against gay issues, no abortion, no "in god we trust" on coins, etc. etc., and my tax money should NOT go to help any religion OR affiliates (Salvation Army, Boy Scouts, etc). Until THAT happens, hb99 is still necessary, and not UNTIL then, FOR SURE!

By Sc4life on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 09:08 pm:

negshrub...no problem...

By twilliams on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 08:34 am:

"My, my! Do you really think someone would choose to behave in a gay way, and then have to tolerate such a sad state of affairs. I know I wouldn't."

Sure, why not? People choose every day to do things that bring them harm. From drug abuse to self-mutilation even suicide. Simply because one is harmed by their choice doesn't make it any less of a choice. Not to mention the fact that we are talking about behavior here, not skin color or gender, and no matter how you slice it behavior is a choice.

"I believe them to be wrong."

Oh, so becasue you believe them to be wrong, it makes it so. Actually, the best research to date shows that sexual orientation is a combination of genetic ( no choice) and social (choice) influences. Seems to me that there may be a genetic predispostion to homosexuality, much like there is for alcoholism, but you and I boht know an alcoholic doesn't have to drink if he doesn't want to.

"I think you would think twice about asking a skin head, or kkk dude to leave your business."

Way to skirt the issue here. Isn't is the same situation though, regarding choice of clientele based upon real or percieved lifestyles?

"YOU are picking on them too. HOW can you deny that?"

I am not. I persoanlly have no problem with serving homosexuals, I just think the government should not make that choice for me. AS you said, the bottom line will make the determination of who makes it and who doesn't.

"I for one don't want any evidence of that in our government."

That is impossible, as long as there is religion its influence will be in all areas of our lives. George Washingotn once said, (parapharased)"It is impossible for a man to rightly govern without the influnce of God" Ths country was founded so that the state did not persecute those with different religious beliefs, but it was not ever construed to remove the Divine influence of GOd from our lives. TO the contrary, God's influence and Jesus's teachings are what give us tolerance of others that are different.

By Francine on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 09:21 am:

"A human being will resort to it's most innate basic instincts when left alone without any outside influence. "

That outside doesn't have to be religious influence. And our basic instincts aren't all bad.

"That makes your statements about being both an atheist and a moral person to be a contradiction, and cannot be validated. "

I'm not quite sure how you could possibly just my sense of morals without knowing me. It seems as though you are saying you have to be religious to have morals, and that's completely incorrect. You are claiming to be an atheist. Are you also claiming that you have no sense of morals?

"Francine are you immoral? Would you not be considered immoral to SOME god FEARIN christians?"

Some christians thinks other christian denominations are immoral. You are, again, mixing religion up with a sense of morals. I believe you to be the one who is confused.

"I come from a religious background..."
I do not.

"I don't believe you are atheist. You've given yourself away in many of your comments. "

I don't believe you have the ability to judge something like that without knowing me. Again, you confuse comments of morality with religion. You seem to have a good deal of trouble separating the two.

"Are you part of any atheist organization? "

Absolutely not. I don't believe in organizing by belief because I am not religious. I do not believe in a supreme being or any type of god. I do not worship. If you do, that's fine. I judge people by their behaviors, not their motivations for their behaviors or their thoughts and beliefs. I don't need to group myself with people who believe exactly the same as I do. I don't feel that need. I am more interested in actions and behaviors than beliefs and reasons behind their morals. I don't care if someone establishes a set of morals from a religion, from a job, from good human nature, or from just good common sense. It's the idea that they have them and act accordingly. That's why I have the opinion I do about HB99. It's based on actions and behaviors.

"If you don't feel that I am being rude, let me know. "

You're getting pretty darn close to being rude when you tell me I don't believe what I believe and that I am not what I am when you have no grounds to do so. You're basically calling me a liar regarding my own thoughts and feelings, simply because you can't seem to grasp the idea of having a sense of morals without being religious. I can't seem to figure how you think you know my thoughts and feelings better than I do. You must have a pretty high and mighty opinion of yourself to think that you can somehow see into someone's mind via internet better than they can by living in their own skin for nearly thirty-five years.

By Negshrub on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 01:46 pm:

Sure, why not? People choose every day to do things that bring them harm. From drug abuse to self-mutilation to suicide. Simply because one is harmed by their choice doesn't make it any less of a choice. Not to mention the fact that we are talking about behavior here, not skin color or gender, and no matter how you slice it behavior is a choice

Did you choose to be straight? If you did it would be a very interesting study. There are gays who choose to act straight because they may be harmed, but studies show that the decision to deny the way they were BORN is what may lead to the typical comparisons you used above. Suicide is the number one cause of gay teenage deaths, and the fear of their being honest about their sexuality is stronger then their desire to live. The fact is, discrimination based on sexual orientation is the last major injustice that needs to be overcome. Thank goodness for women's rights ethnic intolerence laws that at least give those parties a better chance to be treated fairly in this world.

Oh, so because you believe them to be wrong, it makes it so.

I'm glad you pointed that out. So, because some people on the small business board and senate think the way they do, that makes it so. I think not! Bring the bill before the whole senate floor, so we can get a vote from everybody. I want my senators to get out MY voice with my tax dollars, as should all other taxpayers.

Way to skirt the issue here. Isn't is the same situation though, regarding choice of clientele based upon real or percieved lifestyles?

Do you not like my examples either? You have used very "simplistic" examples which have done nothing BUT skirt the issue.

I am not. I persoanlly have no problem with serving homosexuals, I just think the government should not make that choice for me.

If you have no problem with it then why fight it?
This bill will protect the gays from people who do discriminate, and they will continue to discriminate against gays because their are no laws to protect them. Should we do away with laws that protect the CCHILLDRen from sexual preditors? NO! I wonder, do you want the government to make that choice for you or not? If not, then you believe that people have the right to kill, maim, take revenge, and do other nonlegal behaviors, none of which are supposedly acceptable to CHRISTTTIANS!

God's influence and Jesus's teachings are what give us tolerance of others that are different

But, christians are not the be-all, and end-all, and the words in the bible can and do cause intolerance.
Here is a Saturday Night Live example: the church lady:"Isn't that speeccial!?!?!", spoken with such pious hypocrisy, like she never did anything wrong. Granted, she is a characterization, but she is based on attitudes that exist in many denominations.
History has proven that religion has caused civil unrest in every culture, even now in Ireland, Israel, Palestine, USA, etc.
History shows hows supposed christians were part of the crusades [modern day and past], they showed just how tolerent they were by killing those who wouldn't conform to their ways.
Hypocrisy doesn't cut it for me.

That is impossible, as long as there is religion its influence will be in all areas of our lives. George Washingotn once said, (parapharased)"It is impossible for a man to rightly govern without the influnce of God"

Even as they stole land from the Indians and became rich white land owners. The god forementioned had its roots in an EEVVVill axis to begin with, but as time went by truely good people were able to fight for the rights of all people not just rich white CCRIIssTian land owners in power.
Your ten commandments say thou shalt NOT Steal, Thou shalt NOT kill, among others. Say that to Mattew Shepherd's parents, and the American Indians.

******Francine

That outside doesn't have to be religious influence. And our basic instincts aren't all bad.

True, but the outside influence is mostly religious, and in relation to this topic, most of the instinct IS disgusting.

It seems as though you are saying you have to be religious to have morals, and that's completely incorrect. You are claiming to be an atheist. Are you also claiming that you have no sense of morals?

You do not have to be religious to have morals, but not everyone has the same morals and values.
As I said earlier [I guess you overlooked it] I am aware that my exposure to other people will forever affect my sense of morals, just as your sense of morals have been affected by your exposure to other people.
There were, and still are, cultures that have completely different moraes and morals than the christian world. Read the National Geographic to find out just how different they are culturally, religiously, MORALLY.
However, when Mr. Different Morals comes tramping in , and decides to bring them to JESSUUSS with his "repent sinner or die!" message, does that mean that all they have done and learned before then is now evil and wrong, just because MR. Different Morals say so? That's where we are when you come in and say I am wrong--you're judging me and I am judging you from different moral perspectives.
STILL CONFUSED FRANCINE? Everyone isn't confused except you. They have a different background, a different point of view, but when that point of view can dehumanize, and humiliate, segregate, and discriminate, its time for a law to protect the rights of gays.

Some christians thinks other christian denominations are immoral. You are, again, mixing religion up with a sense of morals. I believe you to be the one who is confused

I'm not mixing all only as it pertains to this issue, and issues like it.

Sounds like the christians are confused to me.
Some of them can't even get along with each other, not to mention other things christians want to feel superior to MORALLY.

Absolutely not. I don't believe in organizing by belief because I am not religious

I feel the same. I was just checking.

I don't care if someone establishes a set of morals from a religion, from a job, from good human nature, or from just good common sense.

I see it as you just don't care. If you are athiest it is not very common-sensical to not care when that morae comes from religion. I think you are confused, and that is why I question your athiest background.

You're getting pretty darn close to being rude when you tell me I don't believe what I believe and that I am not what I am when you have no grounds to do so. You're basically calling me a liar regarding my own thoughts and feelings, simply because you can't seem to grasp the idea of having a sense of morals without being religious. I can't seem to figure how you think you know my thoughts and feelings better than I do. You must have a pretty high and mighty opinion of yourself to think that you can somehow see into someone's mind via internet better than they can by living in their own skin for nearly thirty-five years.

You are still pretty young, but age has no bearing on wisdom. If I came across rude it was not my intention dear. I just wanted to find out where you were coming from, so as to gear my argument.

I can't seem to figure how you think you know my thoughts and feelings better than I do.

One can assertain that by reading what little you post. I'm not sure you know what you're feeling or thinking. I think YOU are a somewhat confused.

****FACT****
HOUSE BILL 99 NEEDS TO BE PASSED BECAUSE ATTITUDES EXIST LIKE ONES THAT CAN BE FOUND HERE. LET THE BILL COME TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE!

By twilliams on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 02:54 pm:

"Did you choose to be straight?...."

You miss the point, but in a sense yes, I can choose those with whom I have sexual relationships with, period.

Of course, you seem to feel differently, could you please explain to me how behavior is not a choice.

"Do you not like my examples either?"

What examples?


"You have used very "simplistic" examples which have done nothing BUT skirt the issue."

My examples are meant to remove the underlying feelings about sexual orientation and relate it to what it is, behavior. By using examples that do not evoke the same emotions as homosexual rights, like KKK or Skin Head groups, I can show how ridiculous this type of legislation is.

"So, because some people on the small business board and senate think the way they do, that makes it so."

Yep, that's the way the system is set up. Committes review legislation before it goes to a full vote to ensure that "bad" bills don't make it. There are pros and cons to this system, but by and large it works.


"If you have no problem with it then why fight it?"

I am only fighting the intrusiveness of government. After all, we cannot always trust them to do what is right. Right?

"Hypocrisy doesn't cut it for me."

Me neither, but there are extremists on each side of every issue out there, not only in Christian circles. Actually, I have taken a completely secular view on this issue. Mainly because government is confusing enough wihtout injecting religion into the mix.

"..as time went by truely good people were able to fight for the rights of all people.."

Only because these rich, white, Christian land-owners created the Consitution. They had the foresight to realize the implications of discrimination, even tho' they may have perpetrated it. Sounds like Divine intervention to me.

"Thou shalt NOT kill,"

BTW, it is actually "murder" not "kill" albeit a slight difference, it is an important one.

By Francine on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 03:12 pm:

"I see it as you just don't care. If you are athiest it is not very common-sensical to not care when that morae comes from religion. I think you are confused, and that is why I question your athiest background. "

I'm sorry that your "common-sensical" outlook is that closeminded and limited. I don't care how someone develops a good sense of morals. If they have good principles and stand for them, I am supportive of whatever they do to retain that focus. I married a christian. That is his faith and where he draws much of his strength and beliefs. So, I encourage him to go to church, read the bible, and follow his faith, even though I don't believe in it. If that's what he uses to model good behavior...good for him. Go for it! If someone worships several gods for several things, I encourage them to do that if that is where they draw their positive strength. It's not for me, but it may be for them. To each is own, as long it's not generally negative or desctructive behavior. Which gets us back to the issue at hand...behavior. I don't care how someone learns to behave or even why they behave...just that they do. And I encourage them to keep focus on whatever it is that helps them to do that.

"I can't seem to figure how you think you know my thoughts and feelings better than I do."

"One can assertain that by reading what little you post. I'm not sure you know what you're feeling or thinking. I think YOU are a somewhat confused."

If you think you can figure out what someone else is thinking or feeling a few posts on the internet, you've got alot to learn about people.

You seem as though you are here for nothing more than an argument, and without a leg to stand on at that. You pick out the subtleties in what people are saying rather than to look at the main points. You're arguing about whether or not you believe I am an atheist, when not only is that really not the important issue at hand, but it's not for you to decide or claim. You continue to argue that without even knowing me, which is quite juvenile. It's senseless for you to insist such a thing without knowing me, my background, or my life experiences. The issue at hand is behavior. The government should not step in and tell a business owner which behaviors must be tolerated in that business. That defeats the purpose of free enterprise. If the business thrives for it...super. If it falls...fine. That's what free enterprise is all about-the right to choose how you want to operate your business. It's quite simple. A law like HB99 would be a step in the direction of a socialistic society.

"****FACT****
HOUSE BILL 99 NEEDS TO BE PASSED BECAUSE ATTITUDES EXIST LIKE ONES THAT CAN BE FOUND HERE. LET THE BILL COME TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE!"


WRONG. That's opinion.

By Sc4life on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 04:45 pm:

house bill 99 needs to be passed because attitudes exist like ones that can be found here.let the bill come to the floor for a vote!

i also think that the bill should be passed..

By twilliams on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 05:47 pm:

"house bill 99 needs to be passed because attitudes exist like ones that can be found here."

Please explain. Do you mean those opposing this bill are anti-gay? The bulk of this postings on this thread opposing HB99 have nothing to do with an anti-gay agenda, but rather an anti-government control agenda.

By Negshrub on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 08:41 pm:

****twilliams

You miss the point, but in a sense yes, I can choose those with whom I have sexual relationships with, period.

Then maybe you're bisexual.

What examples?

They were there you blocked them out.

My examples are meant to remove the underlying feelings about sexual orientation and relate it to what it is, behavior. By using examples that do not evoke the same emotions as homosexual rights, like KKK or Skin Head groups, I can show how ridiculous this type of legislation is.

If the kkk, or some skin head needed a law to protect their right I would be for that law. But, many times they are the ones people need protection from when it comes to laws that would have to do with equal rights for gays.

Yep, that's the way the system is set up

The system is corrupt, and it is not working.

I am only fighting the intrusiveness of government. After all, we cannot always trust them to do what is right. Right?

Yes, but untill all intrusiveness is removed, including laws, or lack of laws that allow discrimination this one is also needed.

Mainly because government is confusing enough wihtout injecting religion into the mix.

You can try to deny, but religion is in the mix.
I want it out!

Sounds like Divine intervention to me

No. Many brave people had to die first, and all the improvements made took time and perserverence.
Heres an example of what I think about divine intervention: A child is dying from some hard-to- treat disease; the doctors find a way to cure the child through modern medicine; then the parents say jesus intervened and saved my child-it's a miracle! I say bull-the doctor(s) made the miracle happen.

BTW, it is actually "murder" not "kill" albeit a slight difference, it is an important one.

How about kurdill. It's how you use the words, and in what reference, but No it was kill.

Francine

I'm sorry that your "common-sensical" outlook is that closeminded and limited

Such hypocrisy! How can you even pretend to be open minded?

behavior. I don't care how someone learns to behave or even why they behave...just that they do. And I encourage them to keep focus on whatever it is that helps them to do that.

You choose to judge all gays because of the BEHAVIOR of a few. Then I could say you should be ashamed because other women choose to have an abortion. PROCHOICE HERE

If you think you can figure out what someone else is thinking or feeling a few posts on the internet, you've got alot to learn about people.

I'm always learning new things, and the internet has given me the opportunity to find out how people like yourself feel-things they might not say to me face-to-face. I believe you have a lot to learn about people, and may want to remove yourself from christian influence(s).

You seem as though you are here for nothing more than an argument

Why are you here? Not to discuss the stock market I hope. It's all down.

A law like HB99 would be a step in the direction of a socialistic society.

Actually, when it comes to insuring human rights, this country should be the most "Socialistic" of all because we are such a melting pot of various ethnicities, religions, genders, economic classes, and political persuasions, and everyone should be allowed to equally pursue their life, their freedom, and their pursuit of their own happiness. Our own internal mechanisms for morality, self-control, and self-satisfaction are what either make us succeed or get us each into serious problems. The passage of hb99 only insures that the opportunity is made available to all EQUALLY, up front, without prejudice of any type allowed. What we do with that opportunity is up to each of us--we should just be allowed the opportunity.
One of the measures of maturity is positive use of one's knowledge, knowing how to behave appropriately, and knowing when to accept defeat gracefully. It is also being able to accept other's opinions even when you may disagree.
Subleties refer to the motivations people have for doing and saying what they do. I am much more interested in why a person has a particular thought that the thought itself.

WRONG. That's opinion.

Francine, this entire exchange has been some type of opinion. Are you saying that YOUR opinion has more validity than mine? I think not!!

twilliams

Please explain. Do you mean those opposing this bill are anti-gay? The bulk of this postings on this thread opposing HB99 have nothing to do with an anti-gay agenda, but rather an anti-government control agenda.

Would you read the passage below by Eric Magill, asking us how we feel about hb99?

What is your opinion of Delaware House Bill 99, the bill designed to prevent discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals in the state of Delaware?

I believe they are anti-gay and anti-human rights. They believe that this bill creates special treatment for gays and lesbians, but at they same time they think that by the bill's passage they will not be allowed to hate and be against gays and lesbians anymore--there won't be any more minorities to pick on anymore. There won't be any group to feel superior to anymore, because everyone will be protected. That has nothing to do with govnermnetal control of any type. It only shows that human beings cannot be left to their own devices, because like some many times in history, they will go and do horrific things to some person or group to make themselves feel superior. I don't know what BULK you are talking about, but this thread has everything to do with anti-gay or anti-human rights agendas, but you would rather spin it toward anti-government agendas. It is hypocrisy to say you're against government intervention, but it's ok when they intervene to protect you...get real!

By Sc4life on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 08:42 pm:

uh no i never said that people were anti gay..i all i said was that my oppinion was the bill should be passed..what are u talking about?

By twilliams on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 09:21 am:

"Then maybe you're bisexual."

I could be if I so chose to engage in a relationship with someone of the same sex, but I have not and have no desire to do so. I think the problem you have seeing my point here is you are confusing feelings with actions. Is a person a criminal because they think about committing a crime, becasue they want to commit a crime. No, they are not a criminal until they commit a crime. So it is with sexual orientation, simply becasue you have feelings toward a particular gender does not place you in a particular category of sexual orientation until you engage in that behavior. Feelings mean nothing, actions mean everything.

"They were there you blocked them out."

?????? I must be magic.

"If the kkk, or some skin head needed a law to protect their right I would be for that law."

What about thier right to choose who they serve in ther businesses?

"The system is corrupt, and it is not working."

OK, so why should we let this "corrupt" system make decisions for us?

"this one is also needed."

But this law is as intrusive a law as you can get.

"You can try to deny, but religion is in the mix.
I want it out!"


That is not only impossible, but not the intention of the First Amendment. Government should not sponsor any religion, nor can we expect that as a religious society that religion would be absent in government.

"all the improvements made took time and perserverence."

Yes, they did, but they could not have been made at all if not for the insight of the Founding Fathers. That insight, I belive was Divine Intervention.

"It's how you use the words, and in what reference,"

Exactly, and the Decalogue as originally translated from Hebrew states "Thou shalt not commit murder" Murder is a premeditated criminal act, key word, criminal.


"It is hypocrisy to say you're against government intervention, but it's ok when they intervene to protect you...get real!"

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I truly believe that this issue is governemnt intervention, I am against it for the sam ereason I do not support seat belt or helmet laws or even laws banning the use of cell-phones. They override the individuals right to make decisions for themselves based on what they percieve may be in thier best interests. I don't want the protection from the government for these types of things, I cna make decisions for myself and am willing to live with the consequences.

Furthermore, I don't think you are really concerned with equal rights, after all you seem to have a great deal of animosity towards Christians and clearly would like to inhibit thier rights to proclaim thier faith. You are more concerned wiht the touchy, feeling let's all be happy and get along type mentality. Well, I hat to break it to you but humans will always be fighting back and forth about something, no amount of legislation can change that. At one time in history the Christians were persecuted for their beliefs. Was it legislative action that brought them to power in Rome. No it was the perseverence of the group as a whole that raised them up. Government intervention is never the solution to a social problem. Lisa Venables wrote a letter to support this bill. In her letter she quoted Helen Keller, "The highest result of education is tolereance" That statement is very appropriate to this discussion. In fact, the only way to the equality that is sought by this bill is thought education. This bill educates noone and creates more animosity than already exists. Sounds like a winner, NOT!

By twilliams on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 09:23 am:

"what are u talking about?"

I am talking about this;


Quote:

"house bill 99 needs to be passed because attitudes exist like ones that can be found here"




What attitudes are found here?

By Francine on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 10:35 am:

"You choose to judge all gays because of the BEHAVIOR of a few. Then I could say you should be ashamed because other women choose to have an abortion. PROCHOICE HERE "

No, I choose to judge all gays because of all of their behavior. I feel that all homosexuality is wrong behavior. I'm not ashamed because other women have chosen to have an abortion. I'm not ashamed of another's actions. I'm more disappointed. As far as I'm concerned it's murder. I am not pro-choice. I believe in being responsible for the consequences of your own behavior. Even in the very few cases of pregnancy as a result of rape...there are alot of people who would love to have a child.

"this country should be the most "Socialistic" "

One of the reasons this country was established was to get away from that type of government. They wanted freedom. Research a little history on socialist societies and you will find that they almost always fail or at least fail to thrive.

"Francine, this entire exchange has been some type of opinion. Are you saying that YOUR opinion has more validity than mine? I think not!!"

That is not what I said. You simply stated that it was a fact that HB99 should be passed. I simply stated that it was not a fact. It is a matter of opinion.

"I'm always learning new things, and the internet has given me the opportunity to find out how people like yourself feel-things they might not say to me face-to-face. I believe you have a lot to learn about people, and may want to remove yourself from christian influence(s). "

You certainly do pull alot from your vivid imagination. You are quite mistaken. I am very up front and fairly outspoken. What christian influence is this that you are so sure I am under?

I am really beginning to feel as though I am conversing with a high-school teenie-bopper. But maybe that's just your level of understanding and communication.

By Francine on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 11:18 am:

"I come from a religious background, but we were taught in civics class the importance of having separation between church and state."

"...live in the loving way that Jesus supposedly demonstrated."

"I used to have respect for Billy Graham, until recently"

"So go ahead, continue the same behaviors, and we'll see how GOD-blessed this country REALLY will be."

"If you choose not to, being a Christian, you should know what God feels about hypocrites, that they are full of dead men's stench."

"And in the bible, God abhors hypocrisy."

"Be careful what God you pray to."

"The God you pray to is a gold idol, owned by a person with 10 houses, billions of dollars, deceitful, and if I were to use words in the bible, the anti-christ, or false god."

"If you truly are christian, sell all your possession, become a monk, work in soup kitchens, devote all your time to helping people, as your Jesus would have. Then you will be able to call yourself a CHRIST-ian."

"you've been called by a christian (wrong) right lobbyist, and THEY have called you to do their bidding, not god."

"and little back hills churchs decided to get together and act or behave badly, unlike their jesus"

"Heres an example of what I think about divine intervention: A child is dying from some hard-to- treat disease; the doctors find a way to cure the child through modern medicine; then the parents say jesus intervened and saved my child-it's a miracle!"



"But I'm proud to be an atheist..."

"may want to remove yourself from christian influence(s)."



Now who did you say is so influenced by religion?

By twilliams on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 11:53 am:

Way to go Francine!

By Negshrub on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 12:35 pm:

twilliams

I could be if I so chose to engage in a relationship with someone of the same sex, but I have not and have no desire to do so

I'll say it again, being gay is not a choice. that is why you have no desire to have sex with your same sex. If you could remove yourself from that christian brain washing, you might stand a chance.

?????? I must be magic.

I thought you'd say miracle worker.

What about thier right to choose who they serve in ther businesses?

Not that anyone concerned about human rights would want to go there, and no there is a fine line. Moreover, attitudes like theirs are directly tied to this issue. Let them stay in their own circles, and be free to affect their own, not others who don't want to be affected by hate. By the way, christianty is often a part of the kkk life, and their attitudes are often those of the christians. Not always.

OK, so why should we let this "corrupt" system make decisions for us?

Yes, but not if we find out that corruption is present. Venebles should release that bill to the house floor, just as bush should have agreed to a Florida recount. note example see it

this one is also needed.

So do you think human rights are intrusive? Not a closed minded here!

That is not only impossible, but not the intention of the First Amendment. Government should not sponsor any religion, nor can we expect that as a religious society that religion would be absent in government.

Well, then the 14th amendment isn't working, and the 1st amendment is working, so the government has been corrupted by the christian lobbyists. That doesn't sound like divine intervention to me.
The true god of this country is money, and power. In the early part of the 20th century,"in god we trust" was placed on our currency. Needful to say, I don't want it there, but it fits in with our true love of money and power!

Yes, they did, but they could not have been made at all if not for the insight of the Founding Fathers. That insight, I belive was Divine Intervention.

Actually it was a lack of insight, because while they were trying to protect their own interests, they created avenues for the little guy to slowly crawl through, and become free themselves.

I believe god is a fairy tale made by kings and queens to keep the sheep in order, but you are free to worship what you want, as long as it doesn't affect others.

Exactly, and the Decalogue as originally translated from Hebrew states "Thou shalt not commit murder" Murder is a premeditated criminal act, key word, criminal.

Yes I agree, but it has to do with semantics, and it also has to do with the person's belief as to whether, or not killing and murder are any different. are you killing a sheep or murdering it

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Don't be, but let it be known, I am also sad you feel the way you do.

But I truly believe that this issue is governemnt intervention, I am against it for the sam ereason I do not support seat belt or helmet laws or even laws banning the use of cell-phones

Not a good example, Those laws protect the innocent public from people who have no clue as to being responsible. These issues arise because SOME people aren't capable of being responsible, and thats when the law has to step in. If we could just target the people who deserve these types of laws, I'd be all for it too!

I cna make decisions for myself and am willing to live with the consequences.

Kinda like the wild, wild west: bop!, bop!, shoot!, Shoot!
Like the cowboys of the past where no laws existed. Oh ya, I want to go back to that Way of livin. NOOTT!

Furthermore, I don't think you are really concerned with equal rights, after all you seem to have a great deal of animosity towards Christians and clearly would like to inhibit thier rights to proclaim thier faith

No, and I don't apply all I've said to all christians either. It sound to me that you are like a great many other people who don't read every word, I try to include the word SOME in all my posts. Since I do not believe in polls, I can not give you a percentage. In addition, I come from a christian background, and I can tell you all them are not the same, just as not all people are the same, not all gays are the same. I believe that because I witnessed it. It is not blind faith! There is good and bad in everyone, and I find it appalling that you feel all gay behavior is bad, just as you might find it appalling that I might think all christian behavior is bad!

Well, I hat to break it to you but humans will always be fighting back and forth about something, no amount of legislation can change that. At one time in history the Christians were persecuted for their beliefs

Yes, I think they will too, but as long as we have people who are willing to fight for equal and fair justice for all, we might stand a chance.
One would think christians might have learned from their being percecuted; instead, SOME Use their own religion to percecute, kill, torture, conquer, steal, rape, belittle, justify inequality, hate, etc. etc, all this because they think they are superior, and that the other person of different religion, or race is not even human.

Your god may be testing your abilities to be true to him. Hate and intolerence are not good values! You may not think you're causing hate to flourish, but I do. Lets pass hb99 and make your god happy and you true.

No it was the perseverence of the group as a whole that raised them up.

No, they resorted to the lowest common denominator, by waring and killing. Does the crusades ring a bell? Not to mention other witch hunts!

In her letter she quoted Helen Keller, "The highest result of education is tolereance

Yes, a very appropriate quote that you should live by as a christian.

By Negshrub on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 12:40 pm:

Way to go Francine!

Talk about childish, You have a playground friend francine.

By Negshrub on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 12:43 pm:

Now who did you say is so influenced by religion?

You, and I can't change how religion has influenced you, only you can do that. I still don't think you are what you profess to be, and that is my opinion.

By Negshrub on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 12:58 pm:

What attitudes are found here?

I have found that when a person refuses to except defeat they start spinning. What school teachs radical rights this technique?

HOUSE BILL 99 MUST BE PASSED BECAUSE, AS SHOWN HERE, DECEPTIVE, SELFISH, CLOSED-MINDED PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS.

By twilliams on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 03:41 pm:

"I'll say it again, being gay is not a choice."

OK, I'll say this again. The best research to date lists homosexuality as most likely being a complex combination of genetic and social controls. Which means there is choice involved.

"that is why you have no desire..."

Desire is irrelevant. We are talking about behavior here. The bill uses the language "real or percieved" Reality is perception, and perception is formed by the observaton of behavior. Like I mentioned before, a criminal is not a criminal until there is action.

|red{"Let them stay in their own circles, and be free to affect their own, not others who don't want to be affected by hate"}

Now there's a statement of tolerance and understanding. What if one made the same statement about gays, would you support it? After all the only difference in the two is a different set of morals and beliefs.

"bush should have agreed to a Florida recount"

Unless I'm mistaken, Bush would have agreed to a recount only of all counties in the state did the same, rather that simply a recount in selected counties as Gore wanted done. Nonetheless, wasn't it determined that the recount would have still went in Bush's favor?

"Like the cowboys of the past where no laws existed"

We need laws to protect public safety. When the actions of one endanger many, then a law is justifiable. But laws like HB99 generally are "feel good" laws. They try take away the unpleastant things in our lives. These are often policies which are good intentioned, but have no business being implemented by a large governemnt organization. For exapmle, Company A has an anti-discrimantion policy much like HB99, Company B does not. Company A has a competitive edge over Compnay B becasue they are percieved as a forward thinking progressive company. Is it right for the government to remove that edge by essentially amking Company A and B equal? Government intervention in business is rarely a good thing.

{"No, and I don't apply all I've said to all christians either.....et al}

So you are saying that you support the rights of Christians to exhibit and proclaim thier faith.

"One would think christians might have learned from their being percecuted;"

So what maks you think any persecuted group would learn from that experience?

"Hate and intolerence are not good values!"

How true, but does a person not have the right to be intolerant and hate others?

"Does the crusades ring a bell?"

The Crusades were long after Christians rose to power in Rome. They, like many others who have risen to power, forgot where they came from and acted inappropriately.

|red{"I have found that when a person refuses to except defeat they start spinning."}

Oh, so that's why you started spinning.

By Sc4life on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 04:31 pm:

y do people keep talking about religion?? i thought this is about gays!and yes there are alot of bad attitudes here.everytime someone states there oppinion someone always has to have a rude come back for everything.im not saying people have to agree with what everyone is saying but do we have to act like kids?my oppinion still stands the same,i feel that people should be able to surve anyone they want..but y wouldn't u want to surve a gay or lesbian person? u do make money off then!this world is just going to turn into the way it was along time ago when blacks had to sit in the back of the bus and they had to drink out of there own water fountians....y does the world have to come to this AGAIN? can't people just get along and stop hating eachother?

By Sc4life on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 04:34 pm:

and also u do people some straight people have to be all rude and go around saying "faget" and words like that? and most of the people who say it are grown up...u would think grown ups would have more respect then that towards people.

By Negshrub on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 02:18 am:

OK, I'll say this again. The best research to date lists homosexuality as most likely being a complex combination of genetic and social controls. Which means there is choice involved

I know what studies you're talking about, and they were bought and paid for by the christian right. Where did you find these research findings?
The psychologists I've read tell nothing of this.

Desire is irrelevant. We are talking about behavior here.

Ok then you do desire them.

The bill uses the language "real or percieved" Reality is perception, and perception is formed by the observaton of behavior. Like I mentioned before, a criminal is not a criminal until there is action

That is because hateful bigots also discriminate against people they perceive to be gay, and those that actually are, so it protects everyone. Don't you get it? And what is the point of trying to spin something that makes no sense.

Gays are not criminals, and a comparison like this one is inappropriate.

Now there's a statement of tolerance and understanding. What if one made the same statement about gays, would you support it? After all the only difference in the two is a different set of morals and beliefs.

Gays don't have equal human rights to protect them. Gays don't go around professing to be superior, and they don't stick there nose into other people's business. Gays don't go around beating people up and when they go into a public business; they don't provoke civil unrest. When people stay in their own circle they should keep the public peace and then go home to their own devices. One can stay in their own circle and express what they feel, or think in that circle, but they should dare NOT try to create a hostile, uncomfortable atmosphere for anybody else, period!

So you are saying that you support the rights of Christians to exhibit and proclaim thier faith

Just as long as they don't push it on those who don't share the same sentiment. They can believe what they choose, go to church, and roll down the aisles all they want.
However, if they try to push their beliefs in a business, or in public, and make life difficult for someone there to just eat or buy something, then they need to get the bleep back in their circle. That would apply to gays too, but gays, and for that matter christians, shouldn't have to change their look, or their mannerisms to please the other. If those mannerisms consist of intolerent behavior, when the other party's mannerisms do not, the intolerent party needs to get back in their circle!

Unless I'm mistaken, Bush would have agreed to a recount only of all counties in the state did the same, rather that simply a recount in selected counties as Gore wanted done. Nonetheless, wasn't it determined that the recount would have still went in Bush's favor?

You are mistaken. I have every day's C-span report on tape. Bush, and his compaign managers never once agreed to a recount in any part of Florida, or Florida as a whole. All they did was try to stop the ones Gore wanted.
What I read was that if Gore were wise enough to ask for a statewide recount he would have won, and as far as the recount that was done, it gave results in favor of Gore from Liberal press, and in favor of Bush from conservative press.

Government intervention in business is rarely a good thing.

Believe it or not I agree, but intervention is there to protect some, and not others. Laws have been influenced by big, and small businesses already, and those laws discriminate against some of our fellow humans. Some laws allow for the infringement of the minority's rights and fairness. For example, small businesses like the ones in lower Delaware get together to intervene in government affairs. Then they are just as guilty, and they don't just intervene when it comes to controversies like HB99. They are there at every turn lobbying their LITTLE hearts out. So others intervene, in turn, who don't agree with their intervention, and so on, and so on....If government didn't need to exist we wouldn't be stroking back and forth at each other with these keyboards! Also everyone would be happy with their pursuit OF happiness.

How true, but does a person not have the right to be intolerant and hate others?

Do I have the right to burn down churchs because I am intolerent of religion, or the people that associate themselves with religion and don't walk the walk? No I don't, but I can think what I want, and others may do the same. Plus, I don't want to push my ways on others, if they want to listen thats fine. ******Tell me what you think would I have that right Twilliams?*****

The Crusades were long after Christians rose to power in Rome. They, like many others who have risen to power, forgot where they came from and acted inappropriately.

That was not the only time, here in the US they ethnically cleansed this continent of American Indians. Did you forget the Spanish Inquisition, American Protestent witch hunts, German Nazi ethnic cleansing, several popes in power, kkk, on- going African atrocities, Northern Ireland, I could go on, but thats tomorrow's lesson.

Oh, so that's why you started spinning

No, I present fact, and I read all your words. I don't cut and paste where I want to. Believe it or not it would be nice to come to a mutual understanding. But, that won't happen will it?
I started to wonder if you went through an Evelyn Wood speed reading course because you seemed to miss alot of my meaning, and you skip the comments you don't want to address.



*****sc4life****
y do people keep talking about religion?? i thought this is about gays

Please read Lisa Venables guest opinion on the page back, or go to topics, and search for this opinions page. I hope that will answer your questions.

By twilliams on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 10:46 am:

"Where did you find these research findings?"

Various texts and publications online.

"The psychologists I've read tell nothing of this."

Are these the same psychologists who proclaim that pedophila may not always be harmeful?

"Ok then you do desire them."

The spinmeister returns.

"Gays are not criminals,"

I never meant to make it seem like they were.

"a comparison like this one is inappropriate."

No, it is the main focus of the problem with this bill. I'll say this again, sexual orientation is manifested through behavior, until there is some action one cannot ascertain any type of sexual orietnation whatsoever. I use the ananlogy of a criminal because it most clearly articualtes what I am talking about here. A man can fantasize all he wants about raping someone, but he is not a rapist until he commits the act. A man can fantasize about a same sex encounter, but he is not a homosexual until he has that encounter. The feelings or desires to act are irrelevant to any label that may be put on someone.

"Gays don't have equal human rights to protect them. Gays don't go around professing to be superior, and they don't stick there nose into other people's business. Gays don't go around beating people up and when they go into a public business; they don't provoke civil unrest"

Hey, I thought you always used the word SOME when making these types of statements. Those statements aren't unequivocably true, becasue there are militant gay groups, there are gay activists who purposely stick there noses in ohter business.

"Believe it or not I agree,"

Wow, common ground.

"but intervention is there to protect some, and not others."

Hmm..maybe the best solution is protect no one and let the businesses themselves work it out.

"If government didn't need to exist"

Don't get me wrong, government needs to exist, but its influence over private enterprise should be very very limited.

"Do I have the right to burn down churchs because I am intolerent of religion, or the people that associate themselves with religion and don't walk the walk?"

In a very broad sense, yes you do, but you have to be willing to suffer the consequenses of that behavior. But in a realistic sense, no you don't, but not because of any fellings of intolerance you may have, but because the burning of a church destroys the property of another and places the public at risk. It is more of a public safety issue. HB99 has nothing to do with public safety.

"That was not the only time,"

I did not mean that it was, as I said, "They, like many others who have risen to power, forgot where they came from and acted inappropriately."}

The point was that Christians rose to power through perseverence. The warring that you spoke of occurred after the rise to power.

"I don't cut and paste where I want to."

I cut and paster where there is a point ot be made, because frankly some of you posts go off on tangents that, while I could address them, do not lend anything to the topic at hand.

"But, that won't happen will it?"

Not really, I think that we both feel that human rights are important and that we should strive towards equality. We just have differing opinions on the who should have the controlling authority. I say its in the hands of the people, to be exercised through the free market system, you feel its the government, to be exercised through controlling legislation.

"you skip the comments you don't want to address"

As I said, I left out things that I felt were not pertinent to the topic at hand, but if you want to repost some of those things I did leave out, I will try and address them.

By Negshrub on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 01:08 pm:

Various texts and publications online.

Your whole argument is based on your belief that homosexuality is a choice, and I know those publications were introduced, and funded by religious right.

Being gay is not a choice. You said it yourself in so many words I could be if I so chose to engage in a relationship with someone of the same sex, but I have not and have no desire to do so.

If you have no desire to have sex with another man, then you were not born gay. If you decided to have sex with a man just because you were horny then that is choice. I don't think many straight men would choose to have sex with another man; some people would be intolerent of that, and you would be perceived to be gay and confused also.

Are these the same psychologists who proclaim that pedophila may not always be harmeful

No, but they are on actual psychological boards, that really do exist. Moreover, they perform unbiased studies, unlike the ones that are bought and paid for by hate mongers.

The spinmeister returns.

Well, make up your mind. Desires can be parts of behavior.but I have not and have no desire to do so.then you exhibit straight behavior.

I never meant to make it seem like they
were.


But, why do you always use comparisons like..Sure, why not? People choose every day to do things that bring them harm. From drug abuse to self-mutilation even suicideand psychologists who proclaim that pedophilaand but he is not a rapist hmm?

No, it is the main focus of the problem with this bill. I'll say this again, sexual orientation is manifested through behavior, until there is some action one cannot ascertain any type of sexual orietnation whatsoever

But, when it is manifested because that person is gay, or seems gay, are you saying that shouldn't matter? This paragraph is an example of your SPIN techniques or lack thereof.

Wow, common ground

Yes, but only that which has to with what was mentioned in that paragraph, and how I presented it.

Hmm..maybe the best solution is protect no one and let the businesses themselves work it out

If they want to be cut off from the public entirely, fine. Businesses serve the public, and some of them do discriminate, so they have not done a good job of working it out. Now the government must step in to insure equality and human rights.

Don't get me wrong, government needs to exist, but its influence over private enterprise should be very very limited

You are saying they deserve special treatment. NOT A HYPOCRITE HERE. FAIRNESS SHOULD BE ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT FOR GAYS THEY ARE NOT.
across the board is a paradox here because fairness is not on the minds of some of the Delaware small business committee members.

In a very broad sense, yes you do, but you have to be willing to suffer the consequenses of that behavior.

Boy you leave yourself open. People who discriminate against gays have no consequences to suffer, so your point is mute.

HB99 has nothing to do with public safety

Says you! What about the safety of the gay, or perceived gay person. Are they safe without laws to protect them? Should they be vigalantes, and just suffer the consequences when they get caught? NO!

I did not mean that it was, as I said, "They, like many others who have risen to power, forgot where they came from and acted inappropriately."

Well, it must be ok to keep forgetting where they came from. Maybe some of them should finally find themselves. I'll just ask for forgiveness, or be reborn--ahhhh!!

I cut and paster where there is a point ot be made, because frankly some of you posts go off on tangents that, while I could address them, do not lend anything to the topic at hand

No, they are valid posts, and even though it is hard for you to admit they are very much at the root of this topic. I have chosen to address your tangent ramblings also. However, I address them to get a broader insight into human behavior, and learn how it affects others.

Not really, I think that we both feel that human rights are important and that we should strive towards equality. We just have differing opinions on the who should have the controlling authority. I say its in the hands of the people, to be exercised through the free market system, you feel its the government, to be exercised through controlling legislation

Ok, but people are the government, and people make the free market system. So this issue is in our hands and it is controllable through government and ALL the people.******* That is why the bill needs to be brought to the floor for a vote by all the State of Delaware Representatives.*******

As I said, I left out things that I felt were not pertinent to the topic at hand, but if you want to repost some of those things I did leave out, I will try and address them

It is you're right to ignore those things you don't agree. But it may lead to ignorance if you choose not to at least consider them a possibility. They are still there anyone can read them, and you can still address them if you wish.

By Negshrub on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 01:37 pm:

Hey, I thought you always used the word SOME when making these types of statements. Those statements aren't unequivocably true, becasue there are militant gay groups, there are gay activists who purposely stick there noses in ohter business

NO I SAID TRY. WITH ALL DO RESPECT, LEARN TO READ! people who don't read every word, I try to include the word SOME in all my posts. Since I do not believe in polls

Gay people do it in retaliation to the noses already stuck, and sticking! They are defending themselves, and you have missed the point I was trying to make. AS I've said do away with laws that favor one group, then you can justify preventing HB99 from being made law, and not until then!

By twilliams on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:04 pm:

"Moreover, they perform unbiased studies,"

C'mon, you know as well as I do that there is no such thing as an unbiased study in psychology. That is why you cannot believe my sources and I cannot believe yours. In fact, I truly doubt that there will ever be an accurate answer to the question of the true origin of homosexuality. But the concept that makes the most sense to me is the analogy of homosexuality to alcoholism, genetic predispositions influenced by social and mental controls.

"Desires can be parts of behavior"

Wrong. Desire can affect behavior, but it is not apart of that behavior.

"But, why do you always use comparisons like...

Because then the associated political correctness of gay rights is removed. These examples specifically relate desire and behavior without the concept of sympathy toward a particular group.

"when it is manifested because that person is gay, or seems gay,"

I'm saying that they are not gay until that behavior is displayed.

"People who discriminate against gays have no consequences to suffer, so your point is mute. "

Incorrect, they have to suffer the loss of business, possible boycotts by suppliers etc.

"Are they safe without laws to protect them? "

They have laws to protect their safety, just as everyone else does. It is illegal to commit crimes of assault, criminal mischief, harassment, on up to murder. There are even additional punishments imposed if the motive for the crime is based on sexual orientation.

"Well, it must be ok to keep forgetting where they came from"

Not okay, but human nature.

"I have chosen to address your tangent ramblings also"

Oh no, you mean I rambled on a tangent.

but people are the government, people make the free market system"

Yes, is the most simple sense you are right. BUT. The people are involved in the free market on a daily basis, they buy, sell and trade products and services all the time so what makes you think that an entity that people generally only interact with once every couple of years on election day should have more control that an entity that people live and die by on a daily basis?

"That is why the bill needs to be brought to the floor for a vote by all the State of Delaware Representatives"

How about a statewide referendum instead?

"It is you're right to ignore those things you don't agree."

So why can't I ignore those patrons with whom I don't agree with in my restaurant?

"NO I SAID TRY."

So you did, my error, but....

"Gay people do it in retaliation to the noses already stuck, and sticking!"

Oh, so its okay for some to do it in retaliation. Maybe some of these folks on the "Religious Right" are retaliating the against the intrusion of the gay rights movement into thier First Amendment religious rights?

"AS I've said do away with laws that favor one group"

Example please.

By Negshrub on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 12:38 pm:

I truly doubt that there will ever be an accurate answer to the question of the true origin of homosexuality.

Just ask the homosexuals, or is it that you don't believe them?
I would say they would give you an accurate answer.

Desire can affect behavior

Then they can become a part of it by acting those desires out, or displaying them. i.e., body language, flirting eyes, etc.

Because then the associated political correctness of gay rights is removed

No, they are prejudicial comparisons designed to make gays seem less than human. Moreover, the behavior examples are used to prejudicially connect negative behavior to a gay person, and create a stereotype. Alcoholism is a disease, being gay is a proven inborn sexual orientation, just ask any unconfused gay who has not been locked in a closet. The gays I've chatted with, or talked to in person all say they can remember being gay, or they knew they were different early on in life. [i.e., 3 or 4yrs & up]C'mon, you know as well as I do that there is no such thing as an unbiased study in psychology That is why it might be best to learn from the actual human beings that we're referring too!

I'm saying that they are not gay until that behavior is displayed.

You are again stereotyping. Not all gays act in a way that is considered to be gay-acting. Also, you cannot judge all gays, or people because some act a certain way.

I don't assume all christians are going to act like a television evangelist/preacher.

Incorrect, they have to suffer the loss of business, possible boycotts by suppliers etc.

Good I hope so, but a lot of times these problems exist where gays are outnumbered, and the business has less to lose. That in turn makes it more likely to happen. It will occur in Lower Delaware because you have some civilized urban dwellers who go coursing through the once rural areas where some Jim Joe Bob has his business or sets up camp. Not all people are like that in lower Delaware, thank Mother Earth.

Not okay, but human nature.

Then don't justify hateful rhetoric.

Don't get me wrong, government needs to exist, but its influence over private enterprise should be very very limited

You forgot this one. Why should businesses have more say in Delaware? HA? HA? They already do have more control than they should. Delaware caters to all businesses, and they go overseas to cater to more.

You are saying they deserve special treatment. NOT A HYPOCRITE HERE. FAIRNESS SHOULD BE ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT FOR GAYS it is NOT.

Oh no, you mean I rambled on a tangent.

You think I ramble. I think you ramble. I think you started on tangents. You think I started on tangents. So what we both have our opinions lets leave THIS one at that. Wwwaaa!

Yes, is the most simple sense you are right. BUT. The people are involved in the free market on a daily basis, they buy, sell and trade products and services all the time so what makes you think that an entity that people generally only interact with once every couple of years on election day should have more control that an entity that people live and die by on a daily basis?

If we do not elect businesses to run the country, then why did we elect not one but TWO OIL EXECUTIVES to run the country, who have VERY CLOSE ties to the biggest Business fiasco in many years--ENRON. (That's a topic for another day). You say "simple sense" because you believe businesses are the government, and not the people. I believe your comment to be more twist and Spin. Your comment about election day is an example of how dumbed down America is. Being able to vote is far more important, and it affects the outcome of every topic, or controversy. That is why HB 99 should not be thrown out. The bill should come to the floor for a full vote. The peoples voices have not been heard. The businesses, and some christian voices have been heard. I mean really, how much more blatant can this business/religious corruption be, to deny the people's voice, because of the beliefs/desires of a FEW, such as Senator Venables? We are in such trouble if this type of process continues. Unfortunately, Senator Venables WILL get the Republican vote, meaning that he really didn't serve his own party very well. Hopefully he will pay for that, as he does NOT reflect the beliefs of the majority of Democrats in Delaware.


How about a statewide referendum instead?

Sure why not. I know why you ask this, don't be too smug, thinking it won't pass. The result might just suprise you. There are still a lot of decent people out there--actually more decent than god-fearing.

So why can't I ignore those patrons with whom I don't agree with in my restaurant

What did they do to deserve your ignorance?
This business behavior is what got Lester Maddox in trouble in Georgia in the 60's and almost singlehandedly brought on the Civil Rights Act. Gays must apparently need to have a similar law enacted to insure that the same thing that used to happen to blacks can no longer happen to them either, because you seem to think that you can exclude gays but not blacks from your business. People say that this law is unnecessary--you have already proved that it is.

So you did, my error, but....

It's ok you're human. I can except that, but....

Oh, so its okay for some to do it in retaliation. Maybe some of these folks on the "Religious Right" are retaliating the against the intrusion of the gay rights movement into thier First Amendment religious rights?

It didn't happen in that order, but yes they are retaliating against retaliation and so on, and so on....The religious right was started by Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson types, because they did not want to see two men or women hugging or showing affection toward each other in public. Then you have Anita Bryant, spewing her supposed christian values on television and other media (I wish I could have been the one to throw the pie in her face). These people are the ones who retaliated on the basis of their own religious beliefs. It seems we still haven't been able to find common ground when it comes to civil rights and the supposed religious right. The battle lines have been drawn--GOD VS JUSTICE.

"AS I've said do away with laws that favor one group"

I know there are laws that favor other groups. I will name a few: Blacks have laws; women have laws; children have laws; religious people have laws; animals have laws; babies have laws; old people have laws. Gays do NOT have specific laws to protect them--they only have laws when it comes to severe punishment, just as any other person would have laws to protect them. But as I said, they do not have laws to protect against discrimination, as do those mentioned above. And those laws are needed, because there are people who refuse to treat them fairly on their own.
I know you would probably want to do away with those other laws, too. But just think about how many people you would have to argue with to make that happen.

By twilliams on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 03:44 pm:

"I would say they would give you an accurate answer."

Oh sure, ask someone who hid thier sexuality for an accurate answer on its origin. Of course, they would say it was in born, otherwise they would have bear responsibility for their actions.

"Then they can become a part of it by acting those desires out.."

Ok, I thnk we are at least ont he same page here even if we aren't using the same terminology. I say desire can drive behavior, you say it is a part of it. My point is that the desire can be there without the behavior. One can have the desire to eat a piece of cake, yet never make one movment in that direction. And we make judgements based upon the observations of behavior, we cannot observe desire. Therefore, desire is irrelevant.

"No, they are prejudicial comparisons designed to make gays seem less than human."

Aren't, the criminals, rapists and pedophiles also human?

"Moreover, the behavior examples are used to prejudicially connect negative behavior to a gay person"

No, the comparisons are related to sexual orientation as a whole, not specifically homosexuality. A person is cannot take on the label of heterosexual until they exhibit some behavior that is assoicated with heterosexuality.

"being gay is a proven inborn sexual orientation,"

Objection, counselor. Speculation!

"all say they can remember being gay, or they knew they were different early on in life. [i.e., 3 or 4yrs & up]"

C'mon now, 3 and 4 year olds aren't sexual beings. Ther eis no way a 3 year old could knwo they were gay since they woul dhave no idea of the concept. Also,I would seriously question the validity of any comment regarding the feeligns one had as a child that young. An adult is not going to be able to rememebr feelings they may have had as a toddler, especially in a context that was foreign to them at the time. They may remember being different, but different does not mean homosexual.

"Not all gays act in a way that is considered to be gay-acting."

I'm not saying that they do, nor is it relevant. I'm speaking of the concept that one cannot be considered gay until they have exhibited some behavior that is indicative of that label, ultimately sex with the same sex. A child has no sexual orientation because they have no sexual behaviors.

"but a lot of times these problems exist where gays are outnumbered, and the business has less to lose."

That is irrelevant, and the business they lost will still move elsewhere.

"have some civilized urban dwellers"

Now there's an oxymoron, civilized urban dwellers. It's called a concrete jungle for a reason.

"Then don't justify hateful rhetoric."

I'm not trying ot justify it, simply explain it.

"If we do not elect businesses to run the country, "

Whoa, where did that come from? I didn't lead into it, it isn't true, and it is irrelevant ot this discussion.

"You say "simple sense" because you believe businesses are the government, and not the people."

No, I mean that we live in a Federalist Democracy where the electorate gives control to the government through free elections.

"Your comment about election day is an example of how dumbed down America is"

I agree. Would it be better if there was a test required to allow one ot vote?


"I know why you ask this, don't be too smug, thinking it won't pass."

Actually, I ask this because you seem to be focused on the voice of the people and there is no more accurate way to measure that. That being said, are you sure you want this "dumbed-down" electorate to vote on this mattet directly?

"What did they do to deserve your ignorance?"

Maybe nothing at all, maybe theydidn't fit the atmosphere I like for my establishment, maybe they make me sick. Whatever the reason, why shouldn't I have that right?

"because you seem to think that you can exclude gays but not blacks from your business."

I'll get to this later.

"but yes they are retaliating against retaliation"

SO, why is one right, but the other not?

"I know you would probably want to do away with those other laws, too."

Although I could make an argument that the laws of which you speak in fact legislate morality and that the legislation of morality is wrong, it would be arguing simply for the sake of arguing rather that a poitn that I really believe is valid.

First, there are laws for animals, babies, children and old people because the governemnt is obligated to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Second there are laws regarding religion because of our Constitutional Religious Freedom Doctrine.

Third, Blacks, Women, the young and the old are based upon basic physical characteristics that are not connected in any way with behavior.

That leads into may statement about serving blacks v. gays.

A black man is a black man, based on that alone I cannot refuse him service. Now if he acts in a particular fashion which I do not lie, or does not conform to the established dress code, or is intoxicated or high, then I could refuse service. You see these are based upon behaviors which I as a business owner feel are not good for my establishment. Now if another man were to come in, the only way I could know anything about his sexual orientation would be by his behavior. That being said, if discrimination because of behavior is okay in one case, then why not in another?

By Negshrub on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 02:09 pm:

responsibility for their actions

What actions? Do you think these people want to conform to what you think is responsible? Are these actions harming anyone?
This statement again reflects an intolerant BEHAVIOR.

we cannot observe desire. Therefore, desire is irrelevant

Sure you can, in some cases it is not always removed.

Aren't, the criminals, rapists and pedophiles also human?

Yes, but your point?

A person is cannot take on the label of heterosexual until they exhibit some behavior that is assoicated with heterosexuality

So are you saying you were not always straight?

Objection, counselor. Speculation!

Why? Have you asked these people yourself? Have you had the opportunities to question hundreds of gays, and for that matter care to?
Who speculates more: someone who hears their thoughts, and feelings, or someone who does not even begin to know how to understand them? Have you done your own personal research or something?
I don't think you can begin to validate any other human beings behavior when your own behavior is without merit. You are not an open minded person!

C'mon now, 3 and 4 year olds aren't sexual beings

I think you need to read more. Go to the library, and catch up on early child developement. If you get all your information from the internet, that is really unfortunate for you, especially if you get it from biased sites that form an opinion for you: i.e., NEWSMAX, CNN, FOX, MSNBC. Learn the pros and the cons.

ultimately sex with the same sex

If they are HOMO-SEXUAL that is what they doooo!!!

A child has no sexual orientation because they have no sexual behaviors.

Did you read this somewhere, and if you did maybe you should read about other studies, or would your religious beliefs interfere with that, too?

That is irrelevant, and the business they lost will still move elsewhere

It would not be irrelevant to you if YOU were gay, or discriminated against. For example, if a larger group was intolerant of you because they were all protestants, and you were part of a minority catholic group (try as you may to make that point irrelevant, I bet I would see you fight to be heard), I would see you rise up, march yourself right through all those little businesses, town gathering areas, etc, and make it known that you are not going to tolerate their unexceptance of your kind. I WOULD CLAP FOR YOU! Oh!, I forgot: you also have laws to protect you against religious discrimination. I bet you'd be thanking your sweet bippy for that.

Now there's an oxymoron, civilized urban dwellers.

I said some in relation to hate-mongers, and some in relation to urban dwellers. Do you need glasses?

I'm not trying ot justify it, simply explain it.

Well, keep trying please.

irrelevant ot this discussion

Granted it does stray some, but it does prove a point also.

I agree. Would it be better if there was a test required to allow one ot vote?

How about a test that would measure ones ability to read every word. Not voting is part of the dumbing down of America. Why would I agree to leave anyone out? I don't think the same way you do. I believe in equality.

you want this "dumbed-down" electorate to vote on this mattet directly?

Smug, Smug at the height of smugness. I say take a vote. That heavenly gate of your creator may, or may not have a lock on it. Not that I think such a fairy tale place exists, but some of ya all do. What would your jesus think when a large group of people vote against laws to stop hate and intolerance against others? hmmmm

SO, why is one right, but the other not?

There would be no problem if some christians would stop trying to interfere with the freedoms of other people. Some christians drew the sword, as usual, as history shows, sword after sword after sword against that which they want to feel superior to. Any connection to religion and government has always let to civil unrest. I, for one, believe in an eye for an eye. The christians tried to pluck out a gay persons eye, and the gay person fought back by trying to pluck their eye out. Sound like human nature?
In other words, some supposed christians started it, and the gays did not turn the other cheek, and I'm glad they didn't. I question why some gay people have reason to obey some of the teachings in your bible, since those teachings would surely lead to further persecution and intolerance. However, they are just as deserving of your god's love, and know the bible can be interpreted in many ways. I used references to your bible so you might understand better.

simply for the sake of arguing rather that a poitn that I really believe is valid

So say you.

First, there are laws for animals, babies, children and old people because the governemnt is obligated to protect those who cannot protect themselves

The animals, children, and old people can fight back but they can be over powered by a stronger force. That force usually displays mean, hateful, ignorant behavior that leads to the laws to protect them. The babies have their parents, but that doesn't always work either since the parents are sometimes guilty of abuse, thats why we have laws to protect babies also.

Second there are laws regarding religion because of our Constitutional Religious Freedom
Doctrine


It does not state you have the right to infringe on other peoples rights! Religion has its place , and you can express it all you want, until it interferes with other's religious belief system. It could be said that I stand for my atheist convictions religiously, but I don't go on television talking hate while relating that hate to my conviction.

Third, Blacks, Women, the young and the old are based upon basic physical characteristics that are not connected in any way with behavior

Oh, really? What about the concrete jungle you were talking about? Oh,yes, behavior can be associated with those groups: teen violence, black ignorance, woman lesbian. Blacks were thought by some to be far less intelligent then whites. Blacks were not considered human, or worthy of your god because of a passage in the bible that considered them to be cursed by your god and made black.

That leads into may statement about serving blacks v. gays

There need not be any connection, but there is. Fact is blacks would most likely experience the same extent of intolerance thay did back when laws didn't exist to protect them. Those intolerances still exist today, but theres a penalty for it. AHHA

A black man is a black man, based on that alone I cannot refuse him service

You could until there were laws made to protect them, and one still can, but the penalty is there waiting for them!

in a particular fashion which I do not lie

What kind of fashion?

established dress code, or is intoxicated or high

Another lovely comparison, and they have been added to your list. I see what you mean about dress code, but it is an extremely poor example. Clothes can be changed, peoples colors, and sexual orientation can't be. That is unless you think blacks should bleach themselves, and gays should stay in the closet.

if discrimination because of behavior is okay in one case, then why not in another?

Certain behavioral norms exist no matter what, but you try to use stereotypes to make your point, and you apply the actions of each individual to judge the actions of that individuals group. What you really want to say is: If I don't want to see two of them gays hugging, or holding hands in my business thats all that matters. However, if it were a straight couple holding hands it would be so sweet, and what YOU would consider to be normal. Get over it!

HB 99 needs to be passed because stereotypes, intolerences, discrimination, and ignorance still exist in the hearts, and minds of some people.

By twilliams on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 04:20 pm:

"Do you think these people want to conform to what you think is responsible?"

Not that it matters, but they must. Otherwise there would not be so many "in the closet"

"Sure you can, in some cases it is not always removed."

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no possible was to see a feeling. You can see a person hug some one they are glad to see, but you can't see the "glad", you can see a person stomp away from an argument, but you cannot see the anger. You cannot see the desire only the result.

"Yes, but your point?"

You said the comparison to gays made gays seem less than human. How can that be if all those mentioned were, in fact, human?

"Have you asked these people yourself?"

Here we go again. Look you believe sexual orientation to be genetic, I believe that we have the abilty to choose with whom we have sex with. There's no point is going on with that part of the discussion.

"You are not an open minded person!"

Thank you, glad you noticed.

"If they are HOMO-SEXUAL that is what they doooo!!!"

Exactly, not what they feel, but what they do.

"Did you read this somewhere, and if you did maybe you should read about other studies, or would your religious beliefs interfere with that, too? "

Yes, kids "play doctor" and "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" but there is not a sexual connotation to those games. They are learning about the differences between the sexes and about htier own bodies. But, how many 5 year old boys want to play with girls? How many 18 year old boys want to play with girls?

"I would see you rise up, march yourself right through all those little businesses, town gathering areas, etc, and make it known that you are not going to tolerate their unexceptance of your kind."

Yep, nohting wrong with that, we have the rights to free speech and to peacably assemble. That's what should be done, not let the nanny government make the other kids play nice.

"Do you need glasses?"

My apologies, I read it as "some" meaning a particular group rather than "some" meaning some are civilized.

"How about a test that would measure ones ability to read every word."

So you wish to discriminate against the illiterate. I think the Supreme Court already ruled that unconstitutional.

"Why would I agree to leave anyone out?"

I figured that since you are so enlightened that you would not want us dumb folks voting on important matters.

"Smug, Smug at the height of smugness."

That was the point.

"What would your jesus think when a large group of people vote against laws to stop hate and intolerance against others?"

You think a law can stop hate and intolerance, ROFLMAO.

"The animals, children, and old people can fight back"

Yeah, they sure can, get real.

"It does not state you have the right to infringe on other peoples rights!"

Yes it does, it only says the government cannot infringe upon those rights.

"Oh, really? What about the concrete jungle you were talking about? Oh,yes, behavior can be associated with those groups: teen violence, black ignorance, woman lesbian"

Now look who's stereotyping.

"a passage in the bible that considered them to be cursed by your god and made black."

Haven't heard that one. What passage, if you please, or did you just make that up.

"Fact is blacks would most likely experience the same extent of intolerance thay did back when laws didn't exist to protect them."

I disagree. Do homosexuals face the same degree of discrimination now, that they did at the turn of the century (19th to 20th). I think not, and that is without any "civil rights legislation" jsut public awareness.

"Clothes can be changed, peoples colors, and sexual orientation can't be."

Here we go again. I said this about the sexual orientation issue.

"Now if another man were to come in, the only way I could know anything about his sexual orientation would be by his behavior"

So it would be his bahvior that I would be judging and behavior can be changed, just as clothes can be changed. It doesn't mean he is gay, straight, or celibate, just that there is no behavior to make some judgement on the matter. However, if the behavior is there, I can discriminate against it just as I would any other type of behavior.

"Certain behavioral norms exist no matter what,"

True. Is homosexual behavior a "norm"? I don't mean normal for the group because to a skin head, no hair and Doc Marten's are the norm, but to worldwide society in general.

"but you try to use stereotypes to make your point, and you apply the actions of each individual to judge the actions of that individuals group."

I have done no such thing. Any sterotyping has been introduced by yourself, either to try and disprove one of my points, or by misinterpreting my comments.

"If I don't want to see two of them gays hugging, or holding hands in my business thats all that matters. However, if it were a straight couple holding hands it would be so sweet, and what YOU would consider to be normal. Get over it!"

What I'm saying is, this bill serves to set a precedent that discrimination based upon behaviors is not okay. What's next, allowing people people to stay drunk because they are alcoholics?

"HB 99 needs to be passed because stereotypes, intolerences, discrimination, and ignorance still exist in the hearts, and minds of some people"

Those things will exist regardless of this or any other bill. So why not let education and public awareness rule the land?

By Negshrub on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 06:30 pm:

Those things will exist regardless of this or any other bill. So why not let education and public awareness rule the land?

It's obvious that some people don't want to learn, or be aware. They want their thoughts and opinions to rule. You are right; it all boils down to your belief that gays wake up one day and decide to be gay, versus gays themselves who know what actually happens.
My opinions will remain here to help others with open minds understand. TW do your own research, and READ your own bible ALL the way through! I have bigger fish [symbol] to fry. I was able to further my understanding of how people can justify PREJUDICED, BIGOTED, and INTOLERANT BEHAVIOR.

By twilliams on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 09:06 am:

"it all boils down to your belief that gays wake up one day and decide to be gay, versus gays themselves who know what actually happens."

In the first place, I never said, "they wake up one day...", nor did I mean to imply it. There are many controlling factors in that situation. However, I do feel that your own personal behavior, day in, day out is completely controllable behavior and that the government should not tell me what behaviors I have to put up with.

"It's obvious that some people don't want to learn, or be aware."

So that makes it okay to force something on them?

"My opinions will remain here to help others with open minds understand."

If they can make heads or tails of them that is.

"READ your own bible ALL the way through!"

Been there. Done that. But it is irrelevant to this issue, we have been discussing secualar law, not religious law.

"I was able to further my understanding of how people can justify PREJUDICED, BIGOTED, and INTOLERANT BEHAVIOR"

As was I able to see further evidence that at least one of those who profess to be open minded, tolerant, and concernaed about human rights only does so in part. The right to be bigoted, predjudiced and intolerant is apparently not a human right.

One more thing, Negshrub, should you care to answer. Are you even a Delawarean?

By Francine on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 10:37 am:

"What I'm saying is, this bill serves to set a precedent that discrimination based upon behaviors is not okay. What's next, allowing people people to stay drunk because they are alcoholics?"

Good point twilliams. I have the disease of alcoholism...a brain receptor disorder. I am predisposed to the disease of addiction, due to both of my parents being alcoholics. Does that mean that because I was born this way, I should be able to stay drunk and go to public places and be accepted. After all, I am not responsible for my disease. I am, however, responsible for my actions. Drunken behavior is not acceptable in most places. If I really want to behave that way, I can always find a few places that will accpet it. A few years back, I was even refused service from establishments. Awww, but I have a disease and they refused my patronage because of the way I was born. Wasn't there some type of law to protect me? Nonsense! I was refused service because of my behavior! Consequently, I sought help to change my behavior. I have no choice in being an alcoholic; I will be for the rest of my life. I do have a choice as to whether I act on it. I do not choose to act on that behavior. If I choose to go back to behaving in a manner that some people don't accept, then I can expect people to keep me out of their establishments. They have that right, and they should have that right. I don't see how an analogy can be any simpler. We can't seem to stay focused on the difference between thoughts/feelings and behavior.

By twilliams on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 01:41 pm:

Way to go Francine, you got the concept here. Too bad Negshrub can't see it.

By Sc4life on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 08:39 pm:

francine, i agree with u about people should have there own right to serve who they want to..But i only have one question?why wouldn't they want to serve gays? i can understand if they were al over eachother in public and everything.. But, what if they were just holding hands and they happened to walk into a place that the owner didn;t want to serve gays..do u think that is right when they aren't even hurting anyone?And i am also sorry about your desease..this is just like racism. people were racist and didn;t want blacks to be allowed to do anything.. why do we want the world to be like that again?

By Sc4life on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 08:42 pm:

twilliams, why do u have to be so crule to negshrub juust because he has a different oppinion then u and francine?

By twilliams on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 08:28 am:

"why wouldn't they want to serve gays?"

Maybe they have a religious conviction about it, maybe they don't like the clothes they are wearing, maybe they are just plain ignorant, or maybe they don't like anyone but little green men from Mars. In any case the reason is irrelevant, its all about the rights of people to determine who they hire, fire, serve, or associate with.

"when they aren't even hurting anyone?"

"Hurting" someone is relative to you background and beliefs. There are folks who believe any public display of affection is wrong.

"this is just like racism."

You see, that's where everyone gets things all screwed up, it's not like racism. Racism is where people base opinions on a physical trait, race. Whites are white, blacks are black, orientals are oriental, period, there is nothing a person can do to change that. But this sexual orientation debate is based upon displayed behavior. There is no way that one can even legitimately argue that, absent some sort of medical condition (such as Torett's syndrome) that behavior is not controllable.

"why do u have to be so crule to negshrub"

I don't mean to be cruel to ol' Negshrub, but sometimes his liberal, touchy feely, can't we all get along attitude just begs for a wake up call. He can have his opinions, I understand them even if I don't agree with them. I didn't even want to change his opinions about the origin of homosexuality, when really neither of us know the real truth. All I wanted was for him to acknowledege that behavior is clearly controllable, that we are responsible for all of our own actions. Unfortunately, Negshrub is one of those folks who apparently does not believe in personal reposnsibility. IMHO, that belief is at the core of many of the social problems facing our country. Maybe I was cruel, if I was I won't apologize, sometime you need to hit something with a hammer to make it move.

By Sc4life on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 08:55 pm:

i have a question for everyone...if u owned a restaurant and two guys walk in holdin hands, would u serve them?And another question, if two people of the same sex walked into your place and u had a suspecion they were gay would u serve them?

By twilliams on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 08:20 am:

Absolutely, their money spends just like anyone else's.

By Sc4life on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 08:35 pm:

so why wouldn't u want the law passed??

By twilliams on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 08:14 am:

Because the decision should be up to me, not the government.

By Sc4life on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 03:17 pm:

hmmm,ok

By politicians secret on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 11:50 pm:

Just a thought...people who are "ok" with their own sexuality, who accept themselves (private self congruent with public self) as they truly are (as opposed to their preferred "ideal self", which is usually the public self they want others to see)are usually "ok" with others'sexuality. They simply don't have to spend so much time projecting their own fears and beliefs onto others.

But, self-delusion has always allowed many to be able to live with themselves (and piously judge others)...most especially egocentric politicians who are ALWAYs high self-monitors...in other words, they say, do, act, and PORTRAY themselves in ways they think will persuade the most constituents to support for, and vote for them. Never mind what they hide behind, in the case of HB 99, religion, morals, better business...isn't it funny how the self-righteous "pillars" who go to their church weekly are often not actually ACTING & LIVING by their own VALUES? But hey, the rhetoric sounds good.

Bottom line...if someone feels the need to spend so much time & energy questioning others' sexuality and their opinions are punctuated by strong words like "perverted" "repulsive" ...whatever - it's a strong tipoff that their afraid of some of their own thoughts, fantasies, may even be questioning some latent, desires not congruent with their "ideal" self?!!

By Sc4life on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 01:28 pm:

politicians secret.... I agree fully with your oppinion..That is exactically how i feel.. atleast someone feels the sam way i do....thanks

By politicians secret on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 05:38 pm:

Sc4life...quite welcome. I'm just SO disappointed that this discussion seems to be as one-dimensional, negative, us vs. them homophobic as was the turnout for the HB 99 hearing. I know there are many more enlightened, people out there, in support of HB 99 and/or at least having it brought out of committee for the democratic voting process - because I've spoken to many face-to-face, and many have called me since the pre-hearing editorial. And I know many are reading this and other discussion forums.

So WHY are you folks still hiding and not standing up...I understand the fears, but as with any human/civil rights issue - it's the SILENCE that lets others' hatred fester and grow. I URGE YOU TO SPEAK...start here, someplace safe, so that we can let the hot-air out of the small-minded.

By khinch on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 01:08 pm:

I am a supporter of HB99 and for the very reason that it respects ALL people. And lets just say it now that NO! it is not OK to descriminate even in your place of busniness. Does your business enjoy tax benifits that are payed for by public funds? Is your business located on a public road and open to the public?.....then no you can't discriminate. I don't care what your religious beliefs are. You have no busniess in the pblic domane if you belive that some should be excluded from service because you don't agree with his or her politics, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation. As a Christian, do you deny service to Hindus who belive in many gods?
It's a simple case of equitable application of law and that is what HB99 establishes.

Let's not forget that HB 99 protects those who are even preceved as gay or lesbian. I know many strait men who are effeminate and are often mistaken for gay. But I guess it's still OK to treat them diffently huh?

You people need to use the mind God gave you and formulate your own opinions and not rely so completely on a Book that holds those as an abomonation who eat pork as well as those who lay with mankind as with woman.

By Sc4life on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 03:18 pm:

i believe in HB99 also...in sussexcounty we just seem to have alot of homophobics around here...

By khinch on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:53 pm:

I just moved to Rehoboth myself and fell in love with the place when I first visited 5 years ago. I moved from NYC then to Phila and am now a proud Delawarian. HB99 and the anti-smoking legilation are two significant items that will help The First State shrug off the backwoods, militia mentality reputation it has outside the state. I belive the minority voice yells the loudest so I am confident that people like twilliams are quite few in the county (I hope). Of course I've had "FA--OT" yelled at me on Rehoboth Blvd a few times but I always fight back. Those people are cowards and shut-up quick when you confront them with that fact.

By twilliams on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 01:12 pm:

I won't even bohter to respond to the rantings of "politicans secret" They clearly are on a differnet page regarding the problmes wiht this bill that I am. However, I do have one question.

Why is it whenever anyone questions homosexual rights there are either a homophobe or have unresolved latent feelings? I don't get it.

"it is not OK to descriminate even in your place of busniness."

You see, herein lies the problem. It it OK to discriminate. At first the obvious answer seems to be no, but if you look at it apart form all the political rhetoric it is abolutly OK. In fact, we expect businesses that we patronize to be discriminating. We expect our restaurants to serve quality food and our boutiques to offer quality clothing. Decisons to provide quality products and services are based upon dicriminations of all sorts. But, we're talking about discriminationg based upon personal characteristics right. Okay, many places have dress codes, "No shirt, no shoes, no service" right. People can be refused service because they are intoxicated or unclean. Discrimination is what makes us choose to patronize establishmnets. We make our decisions on where to eat and shop based upon the discriminating taste of the proprietors.


"then no you can't discriminate."

Sure, you can. The market will decide if those discriminations are good ones or bad ones.

"It's a simple case of equitable application of law and that is what HB99 establishes."

Just what we need, anther law to tell us to obey the law.

"You have no busniess in the pblic domane if you belive that some should be excluded from service because you don't agree with his or her politics, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation."

That is for the free market, not a bunch of politicians to decide. We do not need Dover or Washingotn bureaucrats to legislate morality.

"You people need to use the mind God gave you and formulate your own opinions"

Wait a minute. Doesn't this bill remove the ability of form our own opinions and opeate our businesses based upon those opinions?

By khinch on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 12:42 pm:

You appear to relay on the "free market" to form your oppinions. If the free market brings about the demise of a store that sells something people don't want then true, the shop should not be there. But, if the "free market" brings about the demise of a minority owned business solely because the people of that "market" are bigots and choose not to frequent the establishment, I suppose it justifies bigotry???? If it fails then the cause is "OK"?

God save us from a justice based on popular opinion. Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority. That is the same reasoning that exsonerated so many Klansman in the South the height of the civil rights movement. Clear logic and informed minds should lead our socitey and create our laws, not the anarchic grumblings of simple minded populists.

As for homophobia, you need only replace genders of a givin situation to see if you actually see things in an unbiased manner.

A man and woman are exposing themselves to eachother on the Boardwalk at night.
REACTION? Disgust, lock em up

Two men expsose themselves.
REACTION? Disgust, lock em up

YOU WIN! you are an enlighted individual who can view any situation equitably.

A man and a woman are holding hands as they walk down the street and kiss tenderly.
REACTION? Awwww, that is so sweet.

Two men walk holding hands and kiss tenderly.
REACTION? That is repulsive, why do they have to shove it in my face. Deuteronomy says......

YOU LOSE and ARE a homophobe!

By Sc4life on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 03:36 pm:

exactically khinch!!!!!!!!!the reason i say people are homophobes is because it seems to me that they are afraid of homosexuality..as well repulsed by it....but i don't understand y?? i do not know one gay person that see's a straight couple walking around kissing eachother, and says ewwww look at those straight people isn't that discusting... so y do people have to be so rude and stick there noses where they do not belong...... in other peoples sex lives.... my advice is that if u are straight and u do not like seeing a gay couple walk together or kiss then DON'T LOOK... it's not that hard to turn the other way....

By twilliams on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 04:05 pm:

"If the free market brings about the demise of a store that sells something people don't want then true, the shop should not be there."

It doesn't have to be a product that is sold, it could be the atmosphere the business creates as well.

"if the "free market" brings about the demise of a minority owned business solely because the people of that "market" are bigots and choose not to frequent the establishment"

What kind of an argument is that? You are in effect saying the government should force us to shop at a particular business. That cannot be done at all. This bill deals with the reverse, forcing a business to serve clientele it doesn't like. That, my friend, is exactly what makes the free market work. Different propritors have different standards as do the customers, the customer can then choose the business that meets his needs and the businessman can choose the demographic which he wishes to serve.

"God save us from a justice based on popular opinion."

But that's jsut what you get when you pass restrictive laws such as this. Just look at SB99, the smoking bill. That is another ridiculous piece of legislation. Why does the governemnt feel it needs to protects us all from ourselves. If I don't like a smoke filled bar, I don't go there, if I get treated rudely becasue of my sexual orientation, I don't go there either. Why gum up the works with unnecessary legislation.

"As for homophobia, you need only replace genders of a givin situation to see if you actually see things in an unbiased manner."

Hmmm... not really. Homophobia is nothing more than a trendy word whose use is simply to make those who disagree with homosexuality seem mean in some way. I don't like to eat broccoli. Am I a Broccophobe becasue I don't care for broccoli? Is there something inherently wrong with not liking broccoli? Is it wrong to be disgusted by the sight or smell of broccoli? Of course not, so why do we place such a negative connotation to one who doesn't care for homosexual behavior. Oh, becasue it's the "popular opinion" that its wrong and mean spirited.

"YOU LOSE.."

Not yet, khinch, but I will concede if you can convince me that it is okay for the governemnt to tell businesses that they cannot restrict the behavior of thier customers.

"..and ARE a homophobe!"

Aw man, I was hoping to keep that in the closet.

By khinch on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 01:02 pm:

Your method of picking apart a discours causes you to miss the entire point of what I was saying about the free market. (Not a big surprise since you tend to take all your quotes out of context) If you go back and look, you will note that at no time do I call for government to tell us where to shop. THE POINT was to show how rediculous your premise is of the free market judging what is correst behavior. This seems to be the basis of all your justifications for denying gays and lesbians equal protection under the law. Your pathetic logic could have been used 40 years ago to deny black Ammericans their civil rights in the South. And before you start using SPECIAL RIGHTS, let me point out that protection is needed for those classes that are singled out, like women, minorities and homosexuals for discrimination and violence based soley on their existence. You never hear about "straight bashing." (And your response will be....."yes you do it's called battery"....missing the entire point completely)

And tell me twillaims, why is it that the most bigoted and backwards thinking members of our society use "personal freedom" and "freedom from government" to defend their irrational hatred?

And actually, you have lost. We are moving forward dispite the efforts of the narrow minded. The senate has passed the Clean Indor Air Bill and the governor has pledged to sign it.

PS I hate broccoli too and think it should go back to where it came from, sounds eye-talian to me, 'taint Umerican.

By twilliams on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 01:25 pm:

"the free market judging what is correst behavior."

It has nothing to do with what behavior is correct and incorrect, but the freedom to dictate wich behaviors, correct or not, one is subject to in their own business.

"Your pathetic logic could have been used 40 years ago to deny black Ammericans their civil rights in the South."

Yes, I suppose it could, but there is an important distinction. Being black, caucsian, oriental, male or female are very different. They are not behaviors, sexual orientation is only revealed through behavior. If the legislature tried to enact legislation that stated that a business owner couldn't discriminate against a disorderly (drunk) person we would think that would be preposterous, but substitute gay for disorderly (drunk) and it's suddenly protecting someone's rights. In both cases the behavior of the subject would be the means for the discrimination. Why is one okay and the other is not?

Don't get me wrong here, I would serve the gay over the drunk any dayof the week, but the point is, it should not be the concern of the government what behaviors are exempt from regulation by the proprietor.

By khinchc on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 02:40 pm:

Here is where you are mistaken. Homosexuality is not just behaviour. Is a person homosexual only when they are engaged in sex? THAT is preposterous!
Drunkeness is a temporary state. Last time I checked I was gay 24 hours a day. Homosexuality is "revealed" in a persons being not their action. I doubt anyone would CHOOSE to live a life in a society where they are subjected to biggotry and violence. Though this is probably beyond your comprehension, there are those whose reality is different from your own and NOT by choice. You dwel completely in the corporal and base all judgement on that. You might try approaching things objectively without regard to the biases with which you were brought up.

But all gays are limp wristed effeminate cross-dressers in your reality....oh the joy of simplicity.

By twilliams on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 03:12 pm:

"Is a person homosexual only when they are engaged in sex?"

No, but they are once thay have engaged in it.

"Homosexuality is "revealed" in a persons being not their action."

Could you please explain that. What is "part of one's being"

"I doubt anyone would CHOOSE to live a life in a society where they are subjected to biggotry and violence."

C'mon now, people choose to do all sorts of stuff, drugs and prostitution to name a few, that get themselves subjected to violence and discrimination.

"Though this is probably beyond your comprehension, there are those whose reality is different from your own and NOT by choice"

No, the reality is this. We are all responsible for our own behavior, regardless of its cause becaseu behavior is aboslutely controllable. Should an alcoholic's drunkenness be tolerated because he has some genetic predisposition to substance abuse? We all have to live with the consequences of our actions as well. If my taste in clothing does not suit the ideals of the restaurant I want to go in, I have to accept the consequences of possibly not being served. If one's taste in a relationship does not suit the ideals of a particular establishment, then accept the consequences that you may not get served.

This bill is very clearly based upon the behavior of people, otherwise, why would they include "percieved" homosexuality. That is why it is bad, there is no way, absent behavior, to even attempt to make a judgement about someone's sexual orientation. All the stuff about whether sexual orientaition is inherited or learned is irrelevant. This bill prohibits the selection of customers based upon a behavior, pure and simple.

"But all gays are limp wristed effeminate cross-dressers in your reality"

No they aren't, but if I want to refuse service to all limp wristed effeminate men why shouldn't I be allowed to. I mean, you are eluding to the fact that that behvior has nothing to do with sexual orientation, right?

"oh the joy of simplicity."

It is rather simple. You can discriminate based upon behavior, period. This bill seeks to exempt certain behaviors. Bad, Bad idea.

In fact, I think that if this bill eliminated the whole "perception" bit, it really becomes obvious how ridiculous this idea is. If you remove the perception, what is there to base an opinion on?

By khinch on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 04:10 pm:

Being -n. def. 3 One's essential nature.
The American Herritage Dictionary

The sad thing is that you are so closed minded to new ideas and concepts of government.

Good luck sir in your drive to turn back the clock to a time when the white heterosexual male reigned supreme and unquestioned. Now I know why the internet is filled with right wing idiologues like yourself. Where else can you "talk" till your blue in the face and manage to say nothing and sway no one. I will act where it helps most; in person, in the street and in my polling place. This internet is truely addictive. In cyber space you are a GOD sir and I leave you to your tiny realm.

By twilliams on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 12:42 pm:

"Being -n. def. 3 One's essential nature."

OK, but I cannot observe your "essential nature" I can only observe your behavior. The behavior is what is used to make the judgement.

"The sad thing is that you are so closed minded to new ideas and concepts of government."

Yes, I am. If we want new ideas and concepts of government then let's scrap the Constitution and start over. Until then I believe in the basic tenets set forth by our founding fathers, that the government had little to no business in private enterprise.

"the white heterosexual male reigned supreme and unquestioned."

I don't care who is in power as long as they follow the Consitution. Why is it the same groups who proclaim that "freedom of religion includes freedom from religion" stand up and want ot make it illegal for a person to be bigoted. tht is true equality and freedom.

By Maat on Saturday, May 25, 2002 - 01:07 am:

I've read, with much interest, the posts written here and all I can do is shake my head. The only poster with whom I have any familiarity is TWilliams...he and I have discussed this subject several times and pretty much agree to disagree. I respect him as a person entitled to his opinions.

However, I do take issue with the "morality" aspect of homosexuality. How is living with a same-sex partner for 20, 30, 40yrs. (a reality of homosexuality just as much as in the heterosexual world) immoral? I don't see that this subject has anything to do with morality, religion, so-called sin or being a deviant...or even choice. If the last is so, then surely heterosexuality is a choice, also. What might help is understanding that homosexuality or heterosexuality is much more than a bedfellow...it is not an identity but only a facet of one's personna. What does anyone really care with whom another of their acquaintance sleeps? When you are introduced to someone whom you think would be a good friend, do you ask with whom they share a bed and what they do there? Of course you don't...you either know it is none of your business or believe it doesn't matter (or you simply make assumptions). And you would be right. Francine states that she would not serve a gay couple in her establishment...but how would that be determined? You don't have same-sex friends visit there? You ask? (How rude!) I am a gay female who was married for over 30yrs...who chose to care for, (at home...by myself), a quadriplegic husband until his death. I could come into your establishment and unless you asked me, outright, you would probably never imagine that the female friend accompanying me was my (now)life-partner. As to the person who raised the subject of anyone throwing someone out of their business...this is very true. I co-own a business with my partner and our customers come from all walks of life. There are those I would like to throw out but choose to safeguard my person and property from repercussion by waiting...uncomfortably...until they leave of their own accord.

To the Lewes Grandpa...for every gay couple you are afraid your grandchildren may see behave in an unseemly manner, in Rehoboth, you will find five straight couples who are much worse...particularly in summer. And I would agree that, no matter who they are, "groping, fondling" and any overt behaviour is unseemly, particularly for children. Being in town every day for more than 12hrs. each day, I see enough of it to make me want to throw up. Some things should remain private but I would not include hand-holding or simple, minor displays of affection in that category. There is a huge difference between love/affection and lust. And I have yet to see any gay couple walk behind a straight couple, holding hands or arm in arm, tittering, sniggering, pointing or cussing but I sure see an excess of it among those straight couples and families following a gay couple doing exactly the same thing...nothing more.

As to "sinning" and burning in the fires of hell and damnation...oh, I believe in God but not in the man-made dictum purported to be His/Her word. How can anyone preach about their God of Love when in the next breath they want us to believe He/She is malevolent?

By Stay strong on Wednesday, July 03, 2002 - 07:01 pm:

I feel Hb 99 needs to be reintroduced to the senate floor so that all people enjoy the same protection under the law. I am gay, and have no desire for special treatment. I only want equal treatment.

and no where did this bill suggest s was able to further my understanding of how people can justify PREJUDICED, BIGOTED, and INTOLERANT BEHAVIOR. pecial treatment.
negshrub I agree, and it was even more horrible in person when the bill was presented to the senate when it was up for it's consideration. Some very bigoted remarks were made during that session by a few senators, and of course their were bigoted remarks made by the people there who started petitions from mostly down state churchs. I am a christian, but I do not want to see any further break down with the separation of church and state in our country, but when I saw what happened in Dover that day, I knew that separation was in danger! I Love what my country stands for, but I will not stand back and let people treat me like a second class citizen. I don't see how they can say UNITED WE STAND, and further devide. No this country is not blessed until we all realize we all are in this together!

HUMAN RIGHTS WILL MAKE THIS COUNTRY STRONGER!

DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT GOOD PEOPLE, AND FIGHT FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE NEED THE LOYAL OPPOSITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By why on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 04:59 am:

Why is it that whenever one disagrees with the gay life style the response from the gay community is we are promoting HATE? Why is that?

By bible thumper on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 02:09 am:

Because gays always get offended because they know that their lifestyle is unbiblical and any time it was mentioned in the bible God was punishing the homosexuals for their sin. Homosexuals are unnatural and God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. I don't know where they get this idea that it is okay to be gay. God doesn't ordain them being married and he doesn't ordain them. Can a homosexual go to heaven.....No. Only a homosexual that repents of their sin and asks God to come inside of their heart can be saved. Then as it says in john " Ye shall know them by their fruits." If they go right back to their sin then God will realize that they didn't mean it when they wanted salvation and he will send them straight to Hell!

By gumshoe on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 06:16 pm:

Bible Thumper, I to, also believe that homosexuality is a sin, just as many other acts are sinful, such as, drunkeness, adultery, murder, stealing, lying, and so on. Homosexuals are not unnatural, their sin is. I do believe that your post does not mention the "grace" of God. I do believe that a homosexual can accept Jesus into their heart and fall back into bad choices, just as heretosexual pastors can fall into adulterous affairs and relationships and not go to Hell. I believe that when a person truly accepts Jesus into their heart, changes are not always spontaneous, as some would like to believe. Making changes in one's life is called the sanctification process, which takes a lifetime. We have to make the choices, but God helps us, through His power. I believe tough choices have to be made, but people can fail. I believe that's why Jesus said to forgive 7 times 70, because He knew as weak human creatures, we would fail. It's called "Grace". Only God knows what is in the heart of an individual and whether or not the person was sincere, when they accepted Jesus. So to make across the board statements of who is going to Hell, is pretty judgemental on your behalf. I'm saved, yet I still sin, don't you?

I guess the question one would have to ask, is the person struggling with that sin after they have accepted Jesus. If a person claims to be saved and feels no guilt in their heart with a particular sin and continues in it, then one would have to wonder. Even still, during the sanctification process, God weeds out the sinful habits and desires one by one, on his time schedule, not ours. I'm sure there are many saved homosexuals, who still struggle with that particular sin, many alcoholics, who struggle with alcohol, many heretosexuals, who struggle with lust of the flesh and adultery. Sin is sin to God. Humans are the ones who rank them. If we fail, do we get sent to Hell? I would hope not, because none of us would stand a chance. We confess our sins, pick up and keep going.

I am not for any legislation that recognizes homsexuality as a natural sexual preference, natural relationship or institution. I am also against the homsexual movement in this country and its agenda. I believe it's just one more attack of our country's moral fiber.

I do believe however, it's more helpful to those struggling with certain sins, to hear of grace and the love and patience of God, than to hear someone condemning them. Remember God loves homosexuals just as much as the rest of us sinners,(or saints if you prefer), He just hates the sin itself.

By GayMale21 on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 08:54 pm:

For those of you that say that homosexuality is a sin, so be it that is your opinion. However, isn't discrimination or mistreatment based on sexual orientation also a sin? Aren't Christians taught to show love, mercy, and compassion to ALL people? Yes, the OLD TESTAMENT says that homosexuals should be put to death. However, doesn't the Old Testament also say that anyone who masturbates is also committing a sin? Those who eat shellfish and pork are also sinning then, are they not? By that logic, I would say that nearly all of America will be burning in hell upon death.

Furthermore, WHO decided that homosexual acts were sins? Church tradition? If that be the case, let's travel back to Greco-Roman times in the Church's early origin. Homosexualtiy was a very common accepted practice. Julias Caeser was bisexual, Michaelangelo was homosexual. I guess the Pope who commissioned him to paint the Sistine Chapel should burn in hell? Emperor Hadrian had a male lover, even Emperor Constantine had engaged in homosexual intercourse. I don't view homosexuality as a practice at all, it is a part of one's sexuality.

As for homosexuality being referred to as deviant behavior... What is deviant about sharing your body with another person that you love and care for? Just because genitalia is different, does not mean that an orgasm is different, nor is the love any different than that of a heterosexual couple. Is anal sex amongst heterosexuals considered to be deviant behavior? Some may say yes, but would you also agree that oral sex is deviant behavior? How is this any different for homosexuals? I challenge any heterosexual person to claim that it is any different.

I realize that I can't change anyone's opinion. All that homosexuals ask for is that people treat them equally as any other person would like to be treated equally. If there's no other way to realize that, take this situation. Your child is applying for a job for which she is overqualified, yet is denied employment because the child has blonde hair. Is this fair? Absolutely not, which is way it is unfair to discriminate against homosexuals.

Discrimination based on an aspect of one's personality is absolutely wrong, no matter the situation or manner of perception. What makes it acceptable for someone to cry "queer" at someone whom they perceive to be homosexual? Nothing at all. Just as it's unacceptable for someone to say cry "chink" to an Asian. Discriminating someone based upon their sexuality makes as much sense as discriminating someone based on their favorite ice cream flavor.

By gumshoe on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 12:09 pm:

The Old Testament was when, man/woman, were under the law. The New Testament was when, man/woman, were under grace, because of the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. Even during Old Testament times there had to be constant blood sacrifices of animals for our sins, which represented and was a temporary substitution for the future total all inclusive blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who was the God in the flesh, who never sinned. Because Jesus was sin free, the shedding of his blood made him the "perfect" blood sacrifice for all of man/woman's sins, past present future.

Homosexuality is a sin. That is not man's opinion, but God's. Read Romans 1: vs 26-27 and 1 Timothy 1; 10-11.

The other societies and empires usually fell due to moral corruption. Take the Roman empire for example, and do some reading on it.

America has lasted as long as it has because it was originally founded under God, and his teachings, which went hand in hand with our society. Now that God is slowly being removed from our society, because nobody wants to be held accountable for their bad choices, including sexual immorality, our society is deteriorating.

Someone is born with blonde hair, as you say, is not a choice, where homosexuality, I believe, is a choice. Paul addressed this when he mentioned that some men are born without a sex drive for women. He said if that is the case, then serve the Lord. These men that are born without sex drives, I believe, feed into the lie, that if I'm not interested in women I must desire men. It justifies their sin to themselves. It's not just homsexuality though. Some of our so called physchologists are even saying now that people can be born a murderer. What a crock!!! I guess we should allow people to murder, because they were alledgedly born that way. Or how about Obedience Defiance Disorder, where physchologists have given an excuse for children to be bad, because their parents don't want to spend the time raising them and diciplining them properly.

Christians are not to hate homosexuals, just the sin itself. Just as other sins, such as adultery, stealing and so on. When homosexuals have an political agenda to recognize their sinfulness as a right, its a Christian's duty to oppose it. What's next, to have men walk into restuarants with a sheep because they feel it's their right to express their unnatural perverted lusts, in public.

In conclusion, read the Bible from cover to cover. I feel that it would be enlightening for you. If you don't believe in God, to be accountable to, then I believe, that is your biggest problem.

By yamkc on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 02:45 am:

I happy to connect here. I am got married with one child. Unfortunetley, my wife unhappy live with me because of I am christian and she does believe lightly. But the problem is her born house family does not like to be a christian, so she do not want to seperate with her born house family because all are strong Hindu family. Now, my wife feeling forcely/willingly seperate with me. In this period, I am distrassing situation from my wife behave and her's family.

By Princess on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 11:34 am:

What the feezies is this?

By J Davis on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 08:38 pm:

Get rid of this bill period. It's dangerous, unneccessary, and will open the doors up to more trouble down the line. Enough is enough.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.