Moorhead votes down domestic partner registry

Gadzooks!

“Small-business owner” Mark Sinner is actually President of North Dakota’s Fargo-Moorhead kooky Unitarian Universalist Church, and a proud signer of Freedom to Marry’s Marriage Resolution.

Were the leaders of two gay churchs the “many members of the Moorhead community” that wanted to teabag Moorhead? Why, of course they were!

Is Andy Birky lying to his readers? Why of course he is!

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MN Independent, MnIndyLIVE, Minnesota News, Blue MoJo Wire!, TMC Member Feed and others. TMC Member Feed said: MN Independent: Moorhead votes down domestic partner registry: After sometimes angry and emotional debate Monday, … http://bit.ly/93srWx [...]

Queer relationships have always, and will continue to, exist whether or not people like it or not. It is discrimination, pure and simple, and nothing else. If the good people of Moorhrad are comfortable with that, so be it. Many in the south were proud of being seperatists too.

In order for a community to become a “queer community” wouldn’t it require that everyone living there be “queer?” LOL

More nonsense coming from the intolerant who never stop to think that when things go on in others’ bedrooms, they won’t be present. They have no idea about what goes on in their heterosexual neighbors’ bedrooms, and I imagine it would be the same for homosexuals’ bedrooms.

>>>>>“I don’t like queer relationships,” one man said. “Do you want the city of Moorhead to be known as a queer community?”>>>>>>

The only thing queer is your bigotry.

I don’t like you, I don’t like the way you live and my Religion is against your beliefs, perhaps we should move you out of our community?

Hi Joe. Our comment policy says you’ve gotta stick with one username/IP address, so please resubmit your other comments under the same name if you’d like them to appear. Thanks.

Gadzooks, I simply referred to Sinner in the manner he was introduced to the Council. I’m not lying, and it’s “Andy Birkey.” At least spell my name right if you are going to criticize my work.

[...] You can read a full account of the city council meeting at the Minnesota Independent. [...]

Andy Birkey says he didn’t know that Mark Sinner is actually President of North Dakota’s Fargo-Moorhead kooky Unitarian Universalist Church, but I bet he could tell us what Michele Bachmann had for lunch yesterday.

Gadzooks! Is it lying, or is it just craptacular reporting from Andy Birkey? It’s often hard to tell.

Moorhead, sister city to Bangkok.

Gadzooks, I did a search for “North Dakota’s Fargo-Moorhead kooky Unitarian Universalist Church” and it doesn’t seem to exist. Maybe you are making stuff up?

Janine Hanson did not explain how unfair a domestic partner registry is to married couples nor does she realize that the messages of intolerance, hatred and exclusion that she and others like her are perceived by their children, some of whom may be LGBT. These people also are NOT Minnesota Nice.

Sheesh.

Gadzooks!

Now Andy Birkey is pleading for help in straightening out his craptacular reporting!

Is Andy Birkey confused by all the moving parts of Google?

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/voice-for-equality-fargo-moorhead-unitarian-universalist-church

Gadzooks, there is nothing called “North Dakota’s Fargo-Moorhead kooky Unitarian Universalist Church.”

You might have meant something without “kooky” in it. But, I’m just holding you to the same standards you are holding me to.

Ah, I see your point Andy Birkey.

North Dakota’s Fargo-Moorhead Unitarian Universalist Church has a kook in charge, but the building is not kooky.

I’ll admit that this article is refreshingly even keeled, as well as well written (as usual). However, I don’t agree that Mr. Lucier’s statements were all that incendiary. How incendiary is “You have the liberty to do that.”?

Those that wish to modify the mores of society will obviously encounter inertia and should expect to be required to prove the viability of their innovation. Spewing terms of discontent may help the cause, but it really isn’t an honest approach to societal evolution.

Those that wish to retain the mores of society will obviously encounter discontent and should be required to prove the viability of their prejudices. Spewing terms of discontent may help the cause, but it really isn’t an honest approach to societal evolution.

Cute, but retaining mores is by definition not any form of evolution.

Nonsense, Jimmy/Rudy/Raymond. Evolution is but a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage – usualy one that is more advanced or mature. The hysterical homophobia that flared recently in Moorhead is but a step in that process; it remains to be seen if the people of Moorhead can move beyond where it is to that more inclusive community that it can be.

You, Lucier and others need to do some serious self-examination on your queer attitudes towards others. If you don’t like LGBT, chances are good that you don’t like anyone else who are different than you … Hardly cute at all.

My statement wasn’t opinion, just a scientific observation. Anthropology 101. Mr. Lucier is trying to prevent evolution (or more accurately mutation) by preserving the status quo. Such behavior is predicted by science and has proven valuable through eons of human survival. Societal norms are protected against whims of special interests, and as such serve to provide stability to the community.

How does excluding and/or ostracizing and/or injuring/murdering and/or otherwise marginalizing some members of the community based on who they are contribute to the long-term stability of the community? LGBT people can be found in every family, living, studying, working, shopping, going to movies, even going to church along with the rest of the community; the only special interest that the community should have is to acknowledge them for who they are and include them in everyday community life with proper respect and caring.

BTW, Jimmy/Rudy/Raymond, LGBT people have been around through eons of human survival – and many have proven very valuable to the furthering of human civilization and the quality of life.

Societal norms should not be subject to special interests who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo; they belong to everyone – including those who are LGBT.

Unlike genetic mutation which occurs purely by chance, societal norms are shaped by people coming together.

“If you don’t like LGBT, chances are good that you don’t like anyone else who are different than you …”

I’m not fond of tapeworms, but that doesn’t mean I don’t love to see a butterfly

>>>> How does excluding and/or ostracizing…

This question is best asked of a socialogist or anthropologist; they study such things. But as an example, consider people that go out in public with their pants on backwards. Or, people that get tattoos all over their bodies. These behaviors make most people in our culture uncomfortable. Why? Theoretically, because societal norms play an important role in regulating human activity. Modifying norms is by design not very easy, apparently; that’s the stability coming into play.

Sexual orientation a “behavior”? I think not. I submit that if homosexuality makes some people uncomfortable, it is mainly due to ignorance and prejudices. Existing societal norms is not an excuse for perpetuating such.

Homosexuality is identified as a set of behaviors, like it or not. Alcoholism is also defined by a set of behaviors. Both appear to be derived from genetics. But you don’t see alcoholics claiming that DUI laws are discriminatory and that they should be eliminated.

Heterosexuality is also identified as a set of behaviors, like it or not; so what is your point, Jimmy/Rudy/Raymond?

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a person’s genetic susceptibility to alcoholism.

Sexual orientation is defined as “the orientation within human beings, which leads them to be emotionally and physically attracted to persons of one gender or the other or both. One’s sexual orientation may be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual.”

The exact process in establishing sexual orientation is not known.

Gender identity is defined as “an individual’s basic self-conviction of being male or female. This conviction is not contingent upon the individual’s biological gender. The exact process by which boys and girls come to see themselves as males or females is not known. However, research indicates that gender identity develops some time between birth and 3 years of age.”

Because sexual orientation and gender identity are intrinsic traits of a person, they are moral-neutral – neither good nor bad.

Consequently, it is wrong to continue denying law-abiding LGBT American citizens their dignity and right to full equality under the law based just because of who they are.

Neither is achoholism immoral but simply a genetic tendancy. My point is that society imposes myriad rules based on prejudices. Most any crime without a victim reflects this. Gambling, prostitution, public nudity, bigamy, and on and on.

IMO it is wrong to deny the practitioners of these behaviors due to those prejudices. But also recall I believe the government should not impose itself in any issues of marriage, straight or gay. If you insist on enforcing your marital prejudices on heterosexual relationships, then I respond by insisting that we enforce marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman.

I’ve yet to hear one single valid argument as to why access to civil marriage should continue to be denied to loving same-sex couples who want to commit to each other and who may also be raising children. To do so will contribute to further stability of what’s going on in society – a point Jimmy/Rudy/Raymond has gone to such great pains to point out with his societal norms discussion. If this continues to be such a concern for J/R/R, he would be well-advised to look more closely into divorce.

GadZooks, there are some fabulously colorful butterflies in the LGBT community, too.

DUI laws were enacted to protect people from being killed by drunk drivers. I don’t think you can equate marriage laws to that. If two people of the same sex want to get married, no one is going to be killed or maimed because of it.

The other point that’s silly, is that a gay man anf a gay woman can get married in any state. (Of for that matter, a straight man and a gay woman, etc.) If people really want to “protect” marriage, the law should state that marriage is between a straight man and a straight woman. That one would be fun to try to enforce.

Every person has the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex, provided they are old enough and aren’t related in certain ways and they aren’t married already. Everyone is treated equally under the law (except for related individuals, they don’t count, right?).

Jimmy/Rudy/Raymond, it is very demeaning and insulting to tell a person s/he must marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person s/he loves, the companion of her or his choice. The state has no business dictating who that person may marry absent a VALID reason.

J/R/R persists in denying the reality of sexual orientation despite “the reality of a half century of social research on this subject, consisting of thousands of studies, beginning with the Kinsey and Minnesota Twin studies of the 1950′s and continuing to the present, has shown conclusively – beyond any reasonable doubt – that among males, sexual orientation is only very slightly flexible, and among females, it is only modestly more so. That homosexuality is, among males at least, congenital, inborn, and has a genetic component of about 50% and somewhat less among females. In other words, if you’re gay, you’re gay and there is little that you do about it.”

Consequently those who are gay or lesbian are NOT treated equally under the law – hence the struggle for equal access to civil marriage.

Wrong. Every person has the same right to marry another person of the opposite sex. That’s equality whether you like it or not.

Problem is, J/R/R, I don’t see anyone advocating a gay person marry a person of the opposite sex and deceive that person …

Gay people are gay. Period. Pair bondings of same-sex couples happen because gay people exist, and are just as valid as that of opposite-sex couples except same-sex couples are denied access to civil marriage and all its rights and benefits hence the inequality under the law. There is no rational justification to continue marriage as a special privilege for opposite-sex couples.

J/R/R’s concept of equality is a false one, and not even a particularly clever one at that, too. Sheesh.

My description of equality isn’t meant to be clever; it is entirely obvious even to you. It negates the basis of same-sex marriage on equal treatment grounds.

J/R/R persists in his fallacy by equivocation.

According to http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~kak7409/Fallacies.html#7.%20Fallacy%20of%20Equivocation:

7. Fallacy of Equivocation

An ambiguous expression is a word or phrase that has more than one distinct meaning in the context in which it is used. For instance, if I say “I went to the bank”, given the context, it may be unclear whether I went to First National or the shore of the Mississippi. A fallacy of equivocation occurs when the persuasive force of an argument depends on the shifting meaning of an ambiguous expression. Here are some examples:

…

(Example 2) Representative Largent of Oklahoma, arguing in Congress on July 11, 1996 in favor of the “Defense of Marriage Act”, a bill stipulating that ‘marriage’ be between a man and a woman only, excluding homosexual marriages: “Let me just say first of all that this is not about equal rights. We have equal rights. Homosexuals have the same rights as I do. They have the ability to marry right now, today. However, when they get married, they must marry a person of the opposite sex, the same as me.”

Here, the ambiguity occurs in the phrase ‘equal rights’. The equal rights those who advocate homosexual marriages have in mind is the right to legally marry someone to whom you wish to make a public and life-long commitment. The “equal rights” Largent speaks of is the right to legally marry someone of the opposite gender. But guaranteeing the latter right is obviously not the same thing as guaranteeing the former right.

…

Sorry, J/R/R, it’s three strikes and you are out!

1. Nothing is ambiguous in my description other than it doesn’t agree with your conclusion.

2. Appears to agree with my description.

Dude, I think your mistake is that you desperately want to apply rights guaranteed by the Constitution for couples not individuals. Unfortunately no such guarantees exist. Rights are for individuals.

Of course, each State is free to pass laws (via the Legislature) granting any group of people the privileges of marriage or whatever other whimsical advantages the majority deems fit. That’s your best bet, Lane. Convince the likes of Mr. Lucier that we should expand the privileges of marriage to include same sex spouses and you are there.

Au contraire, I’ve done my best to share what I know as well as to poke holes in all of the arguments against extending access to civil marriage for same-sex couples who love each other and want to commit to each other.

J/R/R, all of your arguments and statements are old and recycled. You still have not given one single valid reason as to why same-sex couples shouldn’t get married. And I noticed a consistent avoidance of the phrase “sexual orientation” in your posts …

I feel I’ve said all I need to at this point, and will move on.

I have avoided giving my opinion about same-sex marriage because it is irrelevant. Again, marriage isn’t the business of government. Deny this truism and you are at the whim of the majority. So far you are nowhere near winning that battle.

J/R/R, you did offer your opinion against same-sex marriage. Check your comment posted May 30, 2010 @ 11:10 am.

Alright, I’ve avoided giving my reasoning for opposing same-sex marriage, again since it is not relevant given my assertion that marriage should not be regulated by government. If you force regulation on me, my conclusion is similar to Mr. Lucier’s.

J/R/R’s conclusion still is NOT a valid argument since same-sex marriages would NOT affect him personally; instead, it reflects his homophobia. That is sad.

A conclusion is no kind of argument. I’ve given no argument against same-sex marriage. I’ve given an argument against marital regulation.

Hmmmm.

Just because J/R/R can’t sign a prenup/marital contract with his mother, he declares that loving same-sex couples who want to commit to each other can’t get married.

Yep, real mature.

Loving, caring, commitment, all BS. This is all about money. (And, yeah, it’s my money.) You want to force the government to pay social security benefits, and employers to pay health, life, and retirement benefits to same sex couples.

Drop the boyscout pretense, you and your ilk want cold hard cash. Greed; no more no less.

That, too. Gay people work and pay taxes just as straights do, and yeah, it’s our money, too.

Still another invalid argument as to why same-sex couples shouldn’t get married …

>>>> Still another invalid argument

Seriously, are you still in high school? AGAIN, I didn’t give an argument against same sex marriage. I’m arguing that all this emotional fluff about “demeaning”, “insulting”, and “dignity” etc is a smokescreen. This issue is all about money.

J/R/R, it’s been decades since I graduated top of my class with one of the highest GPAs ever in my high school.

What you’ve been saying or not saying or arguing or not arguing I’ve heard it all before either phrased as an opinion or as an argument except you are trying to repackage the whole thing from a teabagger’s perspective – whatever that is.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. So it is with your homophobia even as you say you aren’t arguing against same-sex weddings … and no, what you’ve been doing here as a classic troll isn’t cool, either.

I’m pretty sure homosexuals can have weddings, except perhaps in various church denominations that refuse such events. That’s their right. Personally, I’d love to attend a gay wedding. It’d be hoot.

>> It’d be a hoot.

I’m not sure how to interpret that one. Care to explain yourself further, J/R/R?

You might be disappointed at the solemn, dignified ceremony where the same-sex couple expresses their love for each other and exchange their vows to commit to each other in front of their Higher Power, family and friends.

A “gay wedding” isn’t some freak show to attend only to speak in mocking terms to everyone afterwards.

>>>> You might be disappointed

I really really doubt it. I wonder, do homosexuals ever “save themselves” for marriage? Has there ever been a virginal gay wedding?

You’d be surprised at how many gays and lesbians do not play around. But then, I know many, many, many heterosexuals do – regardless of whether s/he is married or not. So what is your point?

Besides, has there ever been a virginal straight wedding? Yeah, right.

Were you a virgin when you got married assuming you did get married?

As for whether one is a virgin or not is no one’s business.

J/R/R, you are grasping at straws. I need to move on, and so will ignore all of your postings on this website from now on.

Always looking for an argument. I was simply curious. Unlike most I am ambivalent towards homosexuality and don’t view it as immoral, just one of many biological oddities.

And I still think a homosexual wedding would be very interesting. Weddings are strange to begin with, people getting given away, the vows, the religious leader giving permission for oral affection. The novelty of gender sameness would require some modification of tradition. Perhaps that’s one of my biological oddities, curiosity of such human activities.

It’s okay to be curious, but honey, you need to be much more respectful of – and understanding of – the LGBT community on its own terms – NOT what most of the churches or the right-wing wackos say about the LGBT community!

And stop being such a troll on this website, too!