NationStates Jolt Archive

Since Bush's explicit pronoucement against homosexual marriages and support for the second constitutional amendment ever to take away rights from the individual (the first being prohibition), the queer community and its sympathizers have been under assault by the ultra-conservative far-right. Despite recent victories in the senate against the amendment, it is important to show that we have not forgotten that LGBT individuals are still treated as second-class citizens in a country founded on egalitarianism, an equal opportunity for all. It is too clear of a clichéd Orwellian nightmare that some people are "more equal than others" in this land of the free where the government doles out countless benefits and rights to people who fit its conceptual model of a "wholesome way of life."

That is why on October 8th, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals are uniting in a coallition to boycott and "drop out" of their participation in the economic system of this country for a day. Read more about the scheduled "drop out" and lend your support by participating and spreading the word.

Boycott for Equality (http://www.boycottforequality.org)

...You mean I can use a sick day AND protest at the same time?

Well hell, I'm in!

So to prove you're morally equal to heterosexuals, you're going to skip work? For a whole day? Lemme know how that works out for ya.

I hate using economic recession as a tool of protest. Perhaps the LGBT community could use something else? Perhaps everyone buy something that we can all agree on; or get a company to put words of support on their label and everyone buys that! Surely that would be more fun everyone concerned?


I know, everyone goes out and buys a box of KY jelly. Everyone takes a day off work. That way you piss off two birds with one stone!

.....

Can I still take a sick day on October 5th and just, you know, pretend that I'm standing up for something?

So to prove you're morally equal to heterosexuals, you're going to skip work? For a whole day? Lemme know how that works out for ya.


Well, hell... some self-proclaimed moral heterosexuals do it for football games or golf.

So to prove you're morally equal to heterosexuals, you're going to skip work? For a whole day? Lemme know how that works out for ya.


I love how, in America, failure to contribute to capitalism is a moral issue.

Oh that’s nothing compared to hermaphrodites. The world seeks this third of fourth sex to be eliminated through surgery and hormonal therapy. So please help fight against the mindless mutilation of these strange and unique people. Lets help make it a more tolerant tomorrow for people with both sex. Please contact the Hermaphrodites Unified Movement for a More Understand Society (HUMMUS) for more information.
Thank you.

Note: HUMMUS does not really exist. This is just from a PSA that you can see by watching the movie Terror Firmer after the credits start showing.

I hate using economic recession as a tool of protest. Perhaps the LGBT community could use something else? Perhaps everyone buy something that we can all agree on; or get a company to put words of support on their label and everyone buys that! Surely that would be more fun everyone concerned?
I agree. Be more imaginative. How about picketing the services of Christian Right churchs? They picket abortion clinics and funerals after all.

I love how, in America, failure to contribute to capitalism is a moral issue.

My thoughts exactly. So, anyone got ideas for what to do on this glorious day off? What would reeeeeally offend Bush (or his UK equivalents)?

Actually, the church thing sounds pretty cool. Only, a) I'd need to go somewhere else to do it, because NOBODY in my city would help out, and b) I'd be pretty blacklisted.

Not that I have a proiblem with b, I'm just stating a fact :p

My! don't you gays know how to live, take a day off & protest. Oh! and by the way let all us straght people do the work for you. Why don't you just not work all together then their won't be any prejudice against you at all. For such a minority of the population don't you think you get enough already, I for one, being a heterosexual think you do. I'm with Bush on this one. If you want your own rights go off to your own little island somewhere and rule yourselves then you won't have to worry about people like Bush & me
Why don't all you minority groups stop going on about whaT you want. Heterosexual groups get less already than minority groups per head of population. So get off your high horses & get to work, maybe thats it you don't work & that is why yuo can think up thesae crackpot ideas. LONG LIVE THE HETEROSEXUAL.

Hmmm... I like the idea... But still... It seems so unproductive...
Although, who am I to talk... I participated in the Day of Silence... So hey.. what ever floats your boat and make you feel empowered...

My! don't you gays know how to live, take a day off & protest. Oh! and by the way let all us straght people do the work for you. Why don't you just not work all together then their won't be any prejudice against you at all. For such a minority of the population don't you think you get enough already, I for one, being a heterosexual think you do. I'm with Bush on this one. If you want your own rights go off to your own little island somewhere and rule yourselves then you won't have to worry about people like Bush & me
Why don't all you minority groups stop going on about whaT you want. Heterosexual groups get less already than minority groups per head of population. So get off your high horses & get to work, maybe thats it you don't work & that is why yuo can think up thesae crackpot ideas. LONG LIVE THE HETEROSEXUAL. You sound as though you regard gay/lesbian/etc. people as a different race than you... like a sub-culture. You want them to leave their country and go somewhere else, so you can rest easily at night?... you bastard.

Evidently, if you speak French in Bush's presence, it sends him into a fit. Therefore, everyone should speak only French that day. Preferably something about how whorish his daughers are.

Of course, someone might want to let France and Quebec know beforehand

Ne touche pas le singe! Je suis une pomplemousse... Er... the last french class I had was 4 years ago.. heh

You sound as though you regard gay/lesbian/etc. people as a different race than you... like a sub-culture. You want them to leave their country and go somewhere else, so you can rest easily at night?... you bastard.

Well they are only two days drive from the Texas border.

I'll show myself out. ;)

Although, how to homosexuals have less rights exactly (@ Oppressed majorities).

Just actually read his name, I think that someone may have an inferioty complex.

Hahaha... Thanks

You sound as though you regard gay/lesbian/etc. people as a different race than you... like a sub-culture. You want them to leave their country and go somewhere else, so you can rest easily at night?... you bastard.
No i'm just fed up wiith their constant bleating that they are not treated fairly. They are the ones who want to be treated different to everyone else because they are different. The gays i have met and i have met more than i want have always wanted to split up other peoples relationships. Whether they are straight couples or gay. Yes send them somewhere else.

Let me guess. You've met 1, rather spiteful one.

But anyway, how do you think they are treated fairly?

Yes, this is curious.

How are they treated fairly? They don't have marrige-heck, they don't even have civil unions. They're hated by quite a lot of people, although I suppose that doesn't say that they're treated unfairly.

I bet the ones that wanted to "break apart all the relationship!" was probebly just commenting on how hot the guy/girl in the relationship was.



Oh, and smart guy? Two things. One, this is America, where we have the wonderul freedom to change our country. If someone doesn't like something, they're allowed to try and change it. Not move to another island. I can see you're incredibly patriotic, in the sense that "patriotic" is the same word is "ignorant," or perhaps "idiotic."

Secondly, YOu seem to think that only gay people want to break up relationships. You're either a) blind, and I don't mean in a physical sense, b) purposefully ignorant, which is much worst, or c) lying your ass off.

No i'm just fed up wiith their constant bleating that they are not treated fairly. They are the ones who want to be treated different to everyone else because they are different. The gays i have met and i have met more than i want have always wanted to split up other peoples relationships. Whether they are straight couples or gay. Yes send them somewhere else.

I know quite a few gay and lesbian people (well not so many of the latter, but a couple... heh) and they are quite nice, and have not tried to 'split up other peoples(sic) relationships', to my knowlege at least. If you do not like your environment, it is your prerogative to leave, find a way to cope, or fix the problem. It is in no way the duty of the problem to get away from you or change. The solution to your bigotry is to either relax it or find a place you can live with like-minded individuals.

In other words, you can either shut up and relax about it, or get away from them yourself, because they shall not give up their freedom for your comfort.

the queer community and its sympathizers have been under assault by the ultra-conservative far-right.

or as many call it, Christianity

I agree. Be more imaginative. How about picketing the services of Christian Right churchs? They picket abortion clinics and funerals after all.


you do know there are about 100,000 Catholic churches in America

Actually, the church thing sounds pretty cool. Only, a) I'd need to go somewhere else to do it, because NOBODY in my city would help out, and b) I'd be pretty blacklisted.

Not that I have a proiblem with b, I'm just stating a fact :p

or arrested, first ammendment

Yeahaup, they can sure dish it out but have no appetite for quid pro quo.

Actually, I don't believe one can be arrested simply for picketing a church.

They'll try of course. But if you stay off the actual grounds of the church, you're pretty much safe.


And the point isn't to picket every single church. The point is to do it to select churches that have been particularly loud in the discrimination against homosexuals, and to do it all on the same day.

Queers make me sick and I hope everyone gets some sense and ban it.

Actually, I don't believe one can be arrested simply for picketing a church.

They'll try of course. But if you stay off the actual grounds of the church, you're pretty much safe.


And the point isn't to picket every single church. The point is to do it to select churches that have been particularly loud in the discrimination against homosexuals, and to do it all on the same day.

but by that logic you'd have to picket every Catholic church in the union (and beyond)

Since this thread's been hijacked, I'll say this: if you're not queer and don't sympathize, don't bother with the thread. However, don't waste your breath telling folks what to do. You won't change our minds.

Reposting to get back on topic

Since Bush's explicit pronoucement against homosexual marriages and support for the second constitutional amendment ever to take away rights from the individual (the first being prohibition), the queer community and its sympathizers have been under assault by the ultra-conservative far-right. Despite recent victories in the senate against the amendment, it is important to show that we have not forgotten that LGBT individuals are still treated as second-class citizens in a country founded on egalitarianism, an equal opportunity for all. It is too clear of a clichéd Orwellian nightmare that some people are "more equal than others" in this land of the free where the government doles out countless benefits and rights to people who fit its conceptual model of a "wholesome way of life."

That is why on October 8th, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals are uniting in a coallition to boycott and "drop out" of their participation in the economic system of this country for a day. Read more about the scheduled "drop out" and lend your support by participating and spreading the word.

http://www.boycottforequality.org (Boycott for Equality)

Yup. Let's play a game called "Moderator Says."

Moderator says "Stay on Topic."

Thanks kindly for that reiteration of my sentiments Scolo. Muchly appreciated, as always.

Evidently, if you speak French in Bush's presence, it sends him into a fit. Therefore, everyone should speak only French that day. Preferably something about how whorish his daughers are.

Of course, someone might want to let France and Quebec know beforehand

Québec stands informed! ;)

Ne touche pas le singe! Je suis une pomplemousse... Er... the last french class I had was 4 years ago.. heh

Why can't I touch the monkey, Mrs. Grapefruit?

Queers make me sick and I hope everyone gets some sense and ban it.

Homophobes make me sick and I hope everyone gets some sense and bad it.

Since I just read that it was requested to stay on topic...


Go Queers go! Go Queers go! or something... :-P


I'm canadian and I think the idea of that amendment is preposterous. Your President is clearly trying to take your country back several decades in the civil rights department. I strongly encourage to fight tooth and nail to keep what you have gained in the last years, and hopefully gain even more (read:marriage). This is a fight that takes time: the fights for women's rights or black poeple's rights has started decades before the fight for gay rights, and those are not even yet quite finished.

As for the picketing Churches, my personnal opinion is: they're not shy to tell the world how evil and dirty and sinful gays and lesbians are(in their eyes). I see no reason that should prevent queers from doing the same.

Renvoyez leur la politesse.

Since I just read that it was requested to stay on topic...


Go Queers go! Go Queers go! or something... :-P


I'm canadian and I think the idea of that amendment is preposterous. Your President is clearly trying to take your country back several decades in the civil rights department. I strongly encourage to fight tooth and nail to keep what you have gained in the last years, and hopefully gain even more (read:marriage). This is a fight that takes time: the fights for women's rights or black poeple's rights has started decades before the fight for gay rights, and those are not even yet quite finished.

As for the picketing Churches, my personnal opinion is: they're not shy to tell the world how evil and dirty and sinful gays and lesbians are(in their eyes). I see no reason that should prevent queers from doing the same.

Renvoyez leur la politesse.

well, actually he'd be trying to take us back several weeks in the "civil rights department"

or if you count being able to determine the laws of your nation with a majority vote then W would actually be taking us forward in the afor mentioned department

well, actually he'd be trying to take us back several weeks in the "civil rights department"

or if you count being able to determine the laws of your nation with a majority vote then W would actually be taking us forward in the afor mentioned department

Civil rights isn't about determining the laws with a majority of votes. Every third world dictator can persecute a minority with that majority's blessing easily: all he needs is a little propaganda to make his legilsation pass.

Civil rights is about everybody being equal: check out the Human rights chart to get an idea. I'm Canadian, and our constitution is based on the fact that all humans are equal, hence why marriage was granted in three provinces and is a few months away from being granted everywhere. I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that the US constitution also states that all human beings are equal. If that is so, then refusing marriage, be it to gays or as it was in the past blacks, or interracial couples, goes against this equality. Everyone should be treated equally, without special privileges bestowed.

Please, don't bother with the slippery slope argument if that's what you intended to respond to my post. That horse has been beaten to death so many times there's nothing left of the rotten carcass. If you have something else to debate on, however, you're more than welcome.

Civil rights isn't about determining the laws with a majority of votes. Every third world dictator can persecute a minority with that majority's blessing easily: all he needs is a little propaganda to make his legilsation pass.

Civil rights is about everybody being equal: check out the Human rights chart to get an idea. I'm Canadian, and our constitution is based on the fact that all humans are equal, hence why marriage was granted in three provinces and is a few months away from being granted everywhere. I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that the US constitution also states that all human beings are equal. If that is so, then refusing marriage, be it to gays or as it was in the past blacks, or interracial couples, goes against this equality. Everyone should be treated equally, without special privileges bestowed.

Please, don't bother with the slippery slope argument if that's what you intended to respond to my post. That horse has been beaten to death so many times there's nothing left of the rotten carcass. If you have something else to debate on, however, you're more than welcome.

civil rights are also subject to the moral standards of the people (why we have abortion)

and what are civil rightsthey differ people to people baised on culture. in America for example, the ownership of a firearm is a civil right (one which is deniable)

civil rights are also subject to the moral standards of the people (why we have abortion)

and what are civil rightsthey differ people to people baised on culture. in America for example, the ownership of a firearm is a civil right (one which is deniable)

Civil rights are only influenced by morals up to a point: most of the times, they're only restricted by them. The equality of all humans is axiomatic in the matter of civil rights: it must be the precept that guides the decisions about them. Civil rights must be granted to all equally: the only valid reason to deny a civil right is that granting that right to someone might deny someone else of his right(s).

Let me put it like this: the reason some poeple could be denied the ownership of a firearm, for example, would be because you have sufficient suspicion that he could use it to rob someone else of his right to live in security. Morals aren't specifically involved: the interdiction happens out of a wish to protect the right of the other citizens, not because somebody thinks it's wrong for that person to have a gun.

However, the present discussion is about gay marriage: restricting a civil right from a minority. In this case, there is no risk in granting the right: if gays can marry, it doesn't deny any rights to anyone else. It doesn't have negative consequences on the safety or well-being of other citizens. The right to marriage to gays and lesbians is denied because some(if not most, in the US anyway) believe gays and lesbians to be inferior to the rest of society. That is called tyranny by the majority. You cannot deny a right only because your morals dictates that a certain minority or person is inferior, because they are not: it is stated in the principle of equality of all humans.

Denying gays the right to marry is the same as when the US government denied blacks the right to marry: it is discrimination plain and simple,because it is stated in the heart of the constitution that all humans are equal.


Of course, all my rant is only valid for you if the US constitution actually does state that all men(and woman) are equal, like it is stated in our Canadian constitution. I'd like you to confirm(or infirm) that information in your next post.

Civil rights are only influenced by morals up to a point: most of the times, they're only restricted by them. The equality of all humans is axiomatic in the matter of civil rights: it must be the precept that guides the decisions about them. Civil rights must be granted to all equally: the only valid reason to deny a civil right is that granting that right to someone might deny someone else of his right(s).

Let me put it like this: the reason some poeple could be denied the ownership of a firearm, for example, would be because you have sufficient suspicion that he could use it to rob someone else of his right to live in security. Morals aren't specifically involved: the interdiction happens out of a wish to protect the right of the other citizens, not because somebody thinks it's wrong for that person to have a gun.

However, the present discussion is about gay marriage: restricting a civil right from a minority. In this case, there is no risk in granting the right: if gays can marry, it doesn't deny any rights to anyone else. It doesn't have negative consequences on the safety or well-being of other citizens. The right to marriage to gays and lesbians is denied because some(if not most, in the US anyway) believe gays and lesbians to be inferior to the rest of society. That is called tyranny by the majority. You cannot deny a right only because your morals dictates that a certain minority or person is inferior, because they are not: it is stated in the principle of equality of all humans.

Denying gays the right to marry is the same as when the US government denied blacks the right to marry: it is discrimination plain and simple,because it is stated in the heart of the constitution that all humans are equal.


Of course, all my rant is only valid for you if the US constitution actually does state that all men(and woman) are equal, like it is stated in our Canadian constitution. I'd like you to confirm(or infirm) that information in your next post.

indeed the costitution does specify that

and the federal government never said anything about black marriage, untill a few weeks ago it didn't care about marriage

any many many many people (the majority in fact) belive that recognizing gay marriage will compromise the sanctity of heterosexual marriage

Then they're stupid.

Divorce rates are huge. Maybe we should ban that too?

Let me first say I am a Christain. I was highly offended by the suggestion that all Christains are far-right. My denomination is "open and affirming" toward GLBT peoples. Some of my best friends are gay/bi. Not all GLBT are sub-standard when it comes to morals. There are quite a few who are in bed with a different partner every night, but there are at least as many Hetero's who do the same thing. I support "Gay Marriage", as long as it holds the same standards that hetero marriage does... ya know, "till death do us part" and all.

On a side note I just want to say there are too many people taking marriage MUCH TOO LIGHTLY!!! Marriage is a sacred thing and should be treated as such! I've been married three years, and though it's not been easy, I have no doubt we'll make our 50th (provided the good Lord doesn't have other plans).

Then they're stupid.

Divorce rates are huge. Maybe we should ban that too?

or maybe the state shouldn't have gotten involved in marriage and just left it to the church

Hmm, interesting idea...I hope it goes well. Were I in a service job, I'd be more than happy to participate. As it is, though, my not going to work would actually allow the government to keep money - since I'm a federal employee now, if I didn't log in hours that day, they wouldn't have to pay me. Since my job has no impact on the economy whatsoever, I certainly can't allow that to happen. ;)

Maybe I'll just work overtime that day to drain them of extra cash?

The idea of 'defining' marriage just offends me on dozens of levels. For one-- the constitution is not the place for this kind of total idiocy, and for another, it's nothing more than a ploy to win over the racist, militant, gun-toting, toothless rednecks in the south. Another thing-- my mum is gay, and one day, she may want to form a union with her life partner.

I hope that every gay man and woman in the nation comes out (no pun intended) to vote for Kerry. If I know of a constructive form of protest other than skipping work (I'm a full-time college student, whoops), I'll definitely do it on that day.

indeed the costitution does specify that

and the federal government never said anything about black marriage, untill a few weeks ago it didn't care about marriage

any many many many people (the majority in fact) belive that recognizing gay marriage will compromise the sanctity of heterosexual marriage

The US federal government had blacks marrying and inter-racial marriage illegal for decades. Open a history book, law book or do a google search. And it took supreme court rulings to overthrow that unjust legislation which was passed by a majority of votes.

And unless I'm wrong, sanctity is NOT a civil right determined in your constitution, is it? How could the sanctity of something be a right?I' d love to hear it.

Gay canadians have gotten and are still getting married. Nobody's been complaining how their marriage has suddenly dropped in sanctity. We're talking civil marriage here, not religious marriage. The catholic church hasn't married two gays yet. So the catholic's religious marriages are still as sanctimonious as ever.

Besides, I could counter that an amendment like that would compromise the sanctity of marriage of any Church who has no qualms about performing gay marriages, and believe me, there are such churches. But the fact of the matter is that churches have no say on what civil marriage is: they can only decide to preside or not over a marriage according to their beliefs. That means that there were gays and lesbians here who had their union blessed by the United Church of Canada before they could be legally wed in a civil marriage.

You can't force feed the beliefs of the majority to everyone else when freedom of religion, freedom of thought and freedom of choice are stated in your constitution. When the constitution states that everyone is equal, everyone has a right to choose his or her religion and beliefs, you CAN NOT let the morals of the majority deny minorities of their rights. In that regard, that amendment Bush is trying to pass is UNCONSTITUTIONNAL, by the standards of your present constitution. The only way it could legally make sense is if the consitution was changed into an Orwellian parody of "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others".

Let me first say I am a Christain. I was highly offended by the suggestion that all Christains are far-right. My denomination is "open and affirming" toward GLBT peoples. Some of my best friends are gay/bi. Not all GLBT are sub-standard when it comes to morals. There are quite a few who are in bed with a different partner every night, but there are at least as many Hetero's who do the same thing. I support "Gay Marriage", as long as it holds the same standards that hetero marriage does... ya know, "till death do us part" and all.

On a side note I just want to say there are too many people taking marriage MUCH TOO LIGHTLY!!! Marriage is a sacred thing and should be treated as such! I've been married three years, and though it's not been easy, I have no doubt we'll make our 50th (provided the good Lord doesn't have other plans).

I'm glad you feel that way, and I know not all christians are far-right. My family in law is very religious, and they've been very welcoming of me when I started going out with my boyfriend. What you said about heteros being the same as gays is true: none of them may claim moral high-ground, because every so-called "perversion" or "depraved way of life" the right-wind fundies like to accuse us of, are present in the heterosexual community as well. It's time to judge poeple on merit, not put them all in a box and judge them by stereotypes.

About marriage being sacred, though: only religious marriage is sacred. Civil marriage, however, is a contract between two parties to share their lives and possessions. In that regard, those who marry religiously like you should strive to live up to the ideals of their religion, but those who marry before a jusge or civil officer should not have to live up to your standards. Hence why divorce is legal, but that most churches refuse to marry someone twice.

I noticed something here. Just about everyone who posts in support of Gay/Lesbian/Transgender/Whatever "rights" also has a "mom" who's gay, a "brother" who's gay, "friends" who are gay, etc. Well, of course you feel the way you do, it affects people you are close to. But if you step back and look at it through untainted eyes, the amendment makes sense and is good for the country.

It has nothing to do with winning over "the racist, militant, gun-toting, toothless rednecks in the south" at all. Frankly, homosexuality is not a RACE, therefore, what "civil rights" are speaking of? Shall we go ahead and legalize Man-Boy sex for NAMBLA members while we're at it? I mean, hell, that's homosexuality too. Shall we legalize Polygamy or Polyamory (Group Marrige) while we're at it? Where does it stop? Perhaps we should just let everyone in the whole United States do ANYTHING they want to because it's an issue of "civil rights". Let's just legalize drugs, all of them (but we'll still enforce the driving laws). Let's legalize guns! Everyone can have them and carry them! Now that I mention it, AIDS kills many times more people than guns do every year, yet, we outlaw guns and encourage homosexual behavior among our children for the sake of a small minority of socialists and liberals. Let's have anarchy, that'll cure all our ills, won't it?

The issue is far more complex than an issue of "civil rights", again I say, Homosexuality is NOT a race. There is NO ISSUE of civil rights. And there are some things in this country still left, some things not ripped from our hearts and our souls, that are still sacred. Marriage bewteen a man and a woman is one of those. Give the Homosexual's Civil Unions, after all, thats what they want isn't it? A "civil union"?

But I say ban Gay "Marriage" so at least some of us who remember what the world was like before liberal commie pinko fags started taking over our country can keep at least ONE thing sacred and traditional. :upyours:

Wow, you made a post without a single shred of evidence.


1) where does it stop? Well, what's so bad about polygamy if it's all consensual? As for NAMBLA, someone under 18 cannot give legal consent. End of story.

2) AIDS is not homosexuality related. Everyone can get it. Pure and simple. End of story.

3) You're an idiot.

4) Nice way to end, by the way. I'm sure flipping everyone off will REALLY win them over.

And to think I BOTHERED saying how that slippery slope horse had been beaten to death so many times already...sigh


So, to have a clear view of the situation and "untainted eyes", you have to...
Not know any gays, never have met one, and have no clue about what their life is like? Is that it?


I call that being an ignorant moron who judges poeple on stereotypes without having the slightest clue what he's talking about.


Somebody just made a good show of how ignorant and offensive he is.

I noticed something here. Just about everyone who posts in support of Gay/Lesbian/Transgender/Whatever "rights" also has a "mom" who's gay, a "brother" who's gay, "friends" who are gay, etc. Well, of course you feel the way you do, it affects people you are close to. But if you step back and look at it through untainted eyes, the amendment makes sense and is good for the country.

It has nothing to do with winning over "the racist, militant, gun-toting, toothless rednecks in the south" at all. Frankly, homosexuality is not a RACE, therefore, what "civil rights" are speaking of? Shall we go ahead and legalize Man-Boy sex for NAMBLA members while we're at it? I mean, hell, that's homosexuality too. Shall we legalize Polygamy or Polyamory (Group Marrige) while we're at it? Where does it stop? Perhaps we should just let everyone in the whole United States do ANYTHING they want to because it's an issue of "civil rights". Let's just legalize drugs, all of them (but we'll still enforce the driving laws). Let's legalize guns! Everyone can have them and carry them! Now that I mention it, AIDS kills many times more people than guns do every year, yet, we outlaw guns and encourage homosexual behavior among our children for the sake of a small minority of socialists and liberals. Let's have anarchy, that'll cure all our ills, won't it?

The issue is far more complex than an issue of "civil rights", again I say, Homosexuality is NOT a race. There is NO ISSUE of civil rights. And there are some things in this country still left, some things not ripped from our hearts and our souls, that are still sacred. Marriage bewteen a man and a woman is one of those. Give the Homosexual's Civil Unions, after all, thats what they want isn't it? A "civil union"?

But I say ban Gay "Marriage" so at least some of us who remember what the world was like before liberal commie pinko fags started taking over our country can keep at least ONE thing sacred and traditional. :upyours:

Basically, you're saying unless I'm part of an ethnic minority, I'm not entitled to civil rights because my skin is the same color as yours and therefore it's okay for you to discriminate against me?


Man-boy sex is NOT homosexuality, it's paedophilia. Period. Don't even try starting about how it's all the same, it's not. This just shows how ignorant of the issue you are.

AIDS is NOT a disease for gays only. Far from it. The groupe where you see the most progression in the world is the african heteros. In North America, the group which shows the greatest progression of infection is men and women using injection drugs.

Nobody's asking to ENCOURAGE homosexuality, you dimwit. We are NOT on a recruitment campaign. I couldn't care less what your little paranoia about a so called gay agenda crap or whatever tells you: what we want is the right to live as we deem fit without any stupid whacko telling us we're sinful and inferior and sick and everything else gays and lesbians can be called. We want to be treated just like everyone else, and we won't settle for being second-class citizens just to please those who are offended by our sexual and emotionnal attractions. Like I heard on these forums before: nobody has a right not to be offended.

Church marriage you can call sacred; civil marriage is NOT. End of argument. Don't spew any more fundamentilistic thrash: what gays want is civil marriage and recognition. Leave the churche the right to decide who they marry: I'm sure no gays would want a ceremony in a Catholic or Baptist church. But those who want to get married by a civil officer, a judge, or a church who DOES want to marry gays and lesbian should have the right to do so because they're equals under the constitution and should have the same civil rights. Read my posts on the last two pages, I'm not gonna bother debating that again.

You do NOT have to have skin of a different color to have the same civil rights as the majority. You're protected no matter your color of skin, yes, but also no matter your religion,political ideas, gender, and sexual orientation.


Please do us a favor and don't post again unless you have some intelligent arguments to add. And drop the damn slippery slope.

I noticed something here. Just about everyone who posts in support of Gay/Lesbian/Transgender/Whatever "rights" also has a "mom" who's gay, a "brother" who's gay, "friends" who are gay, etc. Well, of course you feel the way you do, it affects people you are close to. But if you step back and look at it through untainted eyes, the amendment makes sense and is good for the country.

It has nothing to do with winning over "the racist, militant, gun-toting, toothless rednecks in the south" at all. Frankly, homosexuality is not a RACE, therefore, what "civil rights" are speaking of? Shall we go ahead and legalize Man-Boy sex for NAMBLA members while we're at it? I mean, hell, that's homosexuality too. Shall we legalize Polygamy or Polyamory (Group Marrige) while we're at it? Where does it stop? Perhaps we should just let everyone in the whole United States do ANYTHING they want to because it's an issue of "civil rights". Let's just legalize drugs, all of them (but we'll still enforce the driving laws). Let's legalize guns! Everyone can have them and carry them! Now that I mention it, AIDS kills many times more people than guns do every year, yet, we outlaw guns and encourage homosexual behavior among our children for the sake of a small minority of socialists and liberals. Let's have anarchy, that'll cure all our ills, won't it?

The issue is far more complex than an issue of "civil rights", again I say, Homosexuality is NOT a race. There is NO ISSUE of civil rights. And there are some things in this country still left, some things not ripped from our hearts and our souls, that are still sacred. Marriage bewteen a man and a woman is one of those. Give the Homosexual's Civil Unions, after all, thats what they want isn't it? A "civil union"?

But I say ban Gay "Marriage" so at least some of us who remember what the world was like before liberal commie pinko fags started taking over our country can keep at least ONE thing sacred and traditional. :upyours:

Two things. 1. I am not gay and I know nobody who is gay.
2. I am not one of those extreme Kerry lovers, I am neither Democrat or Republican.

Also the thing that I don't thing that anyone has pointed out yet is that if Bush adds this ammendment then he will be breaking the first ammendment which includes Seperation of church and state. And another thing, isn't America a Democracy where everyone is treated equally? It is people like you who give America a bad name. You say things with absolutly no evidince and then say that it is for the sactity of marriage. You never even think about what you are actually saying, you may think that it isn't prejudice but it is nothing but discrimination. You could take any other minority and put it into the phrase "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry eachother." and it would sound nothing but racist. Lets see, Blacks should not be allowed to marry. Does that sound American or Democratic to you. Just because someone is different doesn't meen they should be treated differently.

Two things. 1. I am not gay and I know nobody who is gay.
2. I am not one of those extreme Kerry lovers, I am neither Democrat or Republican.

Also the thing that I don't thing that anyone has pointed out yet is that if Bush adds this ammendment then he will be breaking the first ammendment which includes Seperation of church and state. And another thing, isn't America a Democracy where everyone is treated equally? It is people like you who give America a bad name. You say things with absolutly no evidince and then say that it is for the sactity of marriage. You never even think about what you are actually saying, you may think that it isn't prejudice but it is nothing but discrimination. You could take any other minority and put it into the phrase "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry eachother." and it would sound nothing but racist. Lets see, Blacks should not be allowed to marry. Does that sound American or Democratic to you. Just because someone is different doesn't meen they should be treated differently.

I would kiss you, but that would probably make you uneasy/embarrassed :-P

Thanks for showing support. It's good to see not all heteros who don't have an homosexual close parent/friend are jerks like him.

[QUOTE=Skalador]Church marriage you can call sacred; civil marriage is NOT. End of argument. Don't spew any more fundamentilistic trash: what gays want is civil marriage and recognition. Leave the churche the right to decide who they marry: I'm sure no gays would want a ceremony in a Catholic or Baptist church. But those who want to get married by a civil officer, a judge, or a church who DOES want to marry gays and lesbian should have the right to do so because they're equals under the constitution and should have the same civil rights. Read my posts on the last two pages, I'm not gonna bother debating that again.[QUOTE]

I didn't mean to "spout Fundamentalist trash". I am not a Fundie. I simply meant that many people are redarding marriage as simply "something fun to try". I put my opinon in my last post and didn't realize that I stated it as fact. I feel that marriage (hetero or otherwise) shouldn't be entered into lightly. I just feel that marriage should be taken seriously, whether it's a Civil Union or not. Besides, even Church weddings are Civil Unions... You gotta go through the government to be recognized as an "official" couple. Most churches won't marry any couple without a marriage license.

Again... I FULLY SUPPORT GLBT! I'm sorry for any confusion. I'm actually Bi, myself. I see nothing wrong with it. My husband sees nothing wrong with it. I'm not asking anyone for permission to be the way I am! The world will just have to deal with it!

Oh, and thanks for lumping me in with the jerk. It probably wasn't intentional, but I don't share his views.

[QUOTE=Skalador]Church marriage you can call sacred; civil marriage is NOT. End of argument. Don't spew any more fundamentilistic trash: what gays want is civil marriage and recognition. Leave the churche the right to decide who they marry: I'm sure no gays would want a ceremony in a Catholic or Baptist church. But those who want to get married by a civil officer, a judge, or a church who DOES want to marry gays and lesbian should have the right to do so because they're equals under the constitution and should have the same civil rights. Read my posts on the last two pages, I'm not gonna bother debating that again.[QUOTE]

I didn't mean to "spout Fundamentalist trash". I am not a Fundie. I simply meant that many people are redarding marriage as simply "something fun to try". I put my opinon in my last post and didn't realize that I stated it as fact. I feel that marriage (hetero or otherwise) shouldn't be entered into lightly. I just feel that marriage should be taken seriously, whether it's a Civil Union or not. Besides, even Church weddings are Civil Unions... You gotta go through the government to be recognized as an "official" couple. Most churches won't marry any couple without a marriage license.

Again... I FULLY SUPPORT GLBT! I'm sorry for any confusion. I'm actually Bi, myself. I see nothing wrong with it. My husband sees nothing wrong with it. I'm not asking anyone for permission to be the way I am! The world will just have to deal with it!

Oh, and thanks for lumping me in with the jerk. It probably wasn't intentional, but I don't share his views.


I'm.... confused. I was responding to someone called meatopia or something. Is that a pet of you? Certainly you can't be the same person? The previous post was full of ignorance and arrogance, while your discourse certainly is reasonable and defendable.

I'm pretty sure you're not the same person...

If you really are, then my apologies for the heated reply. I admit my words might've had more sting to them than a usually gallant young man should use.

I'm still under the impression you've somehow mistaken my reply to a jerk to a reply to one of your posts,though.

Yeah, I dunno why you're getting mad Mana :p


I agree with you, actually. Marrige is thrown around a bit too commonly. I mean...jeez. My ex was making plans for us to get married after we had been together for 5 months, and I was still just a senior in high school x_x

I noticed something here. Just about everyone who posts in support of Gay/Lesbian/Transgender/Whatever "rights" also has a "mom" who's gay, a "brother" who's gay, "friends" who are gay, etc. Well, of course you feel the way you do, it affects people you are close to. But if you step back and look at it through untainted eyes, the amendment makes sense and is good for the country.

It has nothing to do with winning over "the racist, militant, gun-toting, toothless rednecks in the south" at all. Frankly, homosexuality is not a RACE, therefore, what "civil rights" are speaking of? Shall we go ahead and legalize Man-Boy sex for NAMBLA members while we're at it? I mean, hell, that's homosexuality too. Shall we legalize Polygamy or Polyamory (Group Marrige) while we're at it? Where does it stop? Perhaps we should just let everyone in the whole United States do ANYTHING they want to because it's an issue of "civil rights". Let's just legalize drugs, all of them (but we'll still enforce the driving laws). Let's legalize guns! Everyone can have them and carry them! Now that I mention it, AIDS kills many times more people than guns do every year, yet, we outlaw guns and encourage homosexual behavior among our children for the sake of a small minority of socialists and liberals. Let's have anarchy, that'll cure all our ills, won't it?

The issue is far more complex than an issue of "civil rights", again I say, Homosexuality is NOT a race. There is NO ISSUE of civil rights. And there are some things in this country still left, some things not ripped from our hearts and our souls, that are still sacred. Marriage bewteen a man and a woman is one of those. Give the Homosexual's Civil Unions, after all, thats what they want isn't it? A "civil union"?

But I say ban Gay "Marriage" so at least some of us who remember what the world was like before liberal commie pinko fags started taking over our country can keep at least ONE thing sacred and traditional. :upyours:

To your firs false argument: I do not know anyone who's gay and I'm big supporter of gay rights bevause there just aren't any logically or ethically valid reason for not supporting them.

And everyone should legalize polygamy. But I think it won' be popular since most including me want have only one partner. But if someone want's have more than one, let them have! (and usually I wont say this but because I think here it's most wise to say it: of course when all parties of polygame agrees in it AND for feminists here, women should have right to have 2 or more men as men could have 2 or more women as their partners.)

Sure lets legalize criminalized psychoactive substances. Alcohol, tobacco, cofein(coffee has lots of it) and tea are psychoactive substances also and the main difference between them and other psychoactive substances is that they are not illegal. You CAN get hooked with coffee, tobacco and alcohol with bigger probability than most psychoactive substances, atleas in the case of alcohol and tobacco.

Why are you talking AIDS to enforce your view of gays? Non-gays are the biggest group who spread AIDS especially in Africa because of the lack of information. (ever considered making valid arguments? :mad: )

Why the hell you say civil rights ain't issua because homosexuals are not a race? And saying that you think you are the same race as homosexuals with no reason to have different rights :p

Have you ever studied pros and cons of communism/socialism and capitalism OBJECTIVELY? I'm certain that you have not. Both have good and bad attributes.

Who is to decide what is sacred? Not you if it would depend on me. And to the traditions. Tradition is not valid argument for propositions. Traditions can be good or bad and there's no reason whatsoever to let issua like this remain as it was before, referring to traditions. :headbang:

I didn't mean to sound angry. I wasn't angry. I was just trying to make my point clear. I'm not the same poster as Meatopiaa. I did, however, refer to marriage as sacred. It is simply my feeling about marriage. I regard it as sacred. It's something to be cared for and nurtured; not tried for fun.

I'm not trying to impose my views/opinoins on anyone else, just trying to state them. If my views/opinons offend anyone... I'm sorry that you're offended but I'll never be sorry for what I believe.

Don't worry Mana, I don't think anyone actually got mad at you ;)

Marrige is sacred. However, sacred and "only consisting of blahblahblah" are two different things.

Indeed, Mana, I wasn't mad at anything you said. I was mad at meatopiaa for his complete lack of arguments other than "marriage is sacred" and "it's always been that way" ;the usual hollow basis of any fundamentalist.

While I certainly respect your view of religious marriage as "sacred", I must say I do hope you do not hold civil marriage in such regard. Civil marriage is a legal entity distinct from the religious ceremony: as such, it is secular and independant of any Church or religious denomination. While I believe in, and strongly defend any Church's right to choose who it marries in accordance to their moral teachings and ethics, I also strongly believe that civil marriage must be free of such restrictions to ensure that no Church can appropriate for itself the legal definition of marriage(which is what is happening right now).

Right-wing churches push to have their own definition of marriage bind the rest of society. It is with a lot of sadness that I see tolerant and gay-friendly churches denied of their right to marry gays and lesbians. Those marriages would be as "sacred" as any catholic marriage: all religions are equally valid under the eyes or law. Or at least they should be.

While, being an agnostic myself, I do not see the same sacred propriety to marriage, I certainly regard it as a pledge from both parties to spend and share the rest of their lives together, and that it should be taken very seriously. However, I think it would be disrespectful to try to push my vision of it to the rest of society. I just wish the more fundamentalistic groups of Christians would be as tolerant and understanding.

I noticed something here. Just about everyone who posts in support of Gay/Lesbian/Transgender/Whatever "rights" also has a "mom" who's gay, a "brother" who's gay, "friends" who are gay, etc. Well, of course you feel the way you do, it affects people you are close to. But if you step back and look at it through untainted eyes, the amendment makes sense and is good for the country.

It has nothing to do with winning over "the racist, militant, gun-toting, toothless rednecks in the south" at all. Frankly, homosexuality is not a RACE, therefore, what "civil rights" are speaking of? Shall we go ahead and legalize Man-Boy sex for NAMBLA members while we're at it? I mean, hell, that's homosexuality too. Shall we legalize Polygamy or Polyamory (Group Marrige) while we're at it? Where does it stop? Perhaps we should just let everyone in the whole United States do ANYTHING they want to because it's an issue of "civil rights". Let's just legalize drugs, all of them (but we'll still enforce the driving laws). Let's legalize guns! Everyone can have them and carry them! Now that I mention it, AIDS kills many times more people than guns do every year, yet, we outlaw guns and encourage homosexual behavior among our children for the sake of a small minority of socialists and liberals. Let's have anarchy, that'll cure all our ills, won't it?

The issue is far more complex than an issue of "civil rights", again I say, Homosexuality is NOT a race. There is NO ISSUE of civil rights. And there are some things in this country still left, some things not ripped from our hearts and our souls, that are still sacred. Marriage bewteen a man and a woman is one of those. Give the Homosexual's Civil Unions, after all, thats what they want isn't it? A "civil union"?

But I say ban Gay "Marriage" so at least some of us who remember what the world was like before liberal commie pinko fags started taking over our country can keep at least ONE thing sacred and traditional. :upyours:

Do. Not. Flame.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

The question I would truly like to see answered he is: what right does any individual, group or other organization (specifically religiously-based in this topic) have to ban two individuals from something they both consent to?

All that seems to have been raised here in opposition to gay marriages is that because Marriage is a religious tradition (and it would seem in the eyes of some that it is only a tradition of Christianity/Islam/Judiaism etc), and conventionally has been between a man and women, therefore gay marriage is wrong. Aside from that being only vaguely relavent and even more vaguely sequitur, it doesn't answer the question- if two people wish to do something that doesn't negatively effect others (and yes that is a dare to see someone ruin their credibility by labelling homosexuality as 'evil' or some other ridiculous religious crap) and call it what they want (and indeed reap the legal benefits of which they should be entirely entitled to), then who are we to interfere? How can we let one groups (irrational) beliefs deny rights to others.

Just a couple of quick thoughts:

I suspect that the specific desire of the 'establishment' to label marriage as the union between 'a man and a woman' serves a double purpose. The first, is what is being discussed - the lack of right for homosexual couples to enjoy the same tax breaks, etc that heterosexual couples enjoy. I am deeply suspicious that the specific wording is also designed to codify - in advance - a law that will prevent appeals for the legalisation of polygamous marriages. The irony being, of course, that poly marriages are 'sacred' in some religions, but still deprived of the same rights accorded to 'vanilla' couples.

Second thought: Christian antagonists should note that Jesus himself argued seperation of church and state. If he could see the difference between civil and sacred, what right has the modern organised religion to decide otherwise?

Last thought: To the aggressive fellow... Check your history books. Sacred or otherwise, marriage is a relatively new invention... sure, it's in the Bible - but go back a few hundred years and most of America's settler races had no marriage except for common law. Only the rich married, and that was to transfer titles, lands or to protect wealth... everyone else seemed to get by without any kind of recognised civil or sacred arrangement - just a consensus between individuals.

Shall we legalize Polygamy or Polyamory (Group Marrige) while we're at it?
Yes. If it's consensual I have no problem. But really, all this depends on the definition of marriage - legally bonding union or religious ceremony.

Where does it stop? Perhaps we should just let everyone in the whole United States do ANYTHING they want to because it's an issue of "civil rights". Let's just legalize drugs, all of them (but we'll still enforce the driving laws).
OK, let's. Drivers kill more people than drugs, after all - and they are much more likely to kill others rather than themselves.

Let's legalize guns! Everyone can have them and carry them! Now that I mention it, AIDS kills many times more people than guns do every year, yet, we outlaw guns and encourage homosexual behavior among our children for the sake of a small minority of socialists and liberals. Let's have anarchy, that'll cure all our ills, won't it?
1) AIDS is not exclusively a homosexual affliction - your point is nonsense.
2) Who's encouraging homosexuality among children? No one here - your point is nonsense.
3) Advocating homosexual has no bearing on whether or not one is socialist - your point is nonsense.
4) Liberals aren't a small minority - your point is nonsense.
5) Anarchy may well cure our ills eventiually; however, the relative merits of a political philosophy with no rulers has little to do with the issue of homosexual marriage - your point is nonsense.

But I say ban Gay "Marriage" so at least some of us who remember what the world was like before liberal commie pinko fags started taking over our country can keep at least ONE thing sacred and traditional. :upyours:
Yay! It's been ages since I've seen 'liberal commie pinko fag'! You forgot treehugging though. Incidentally, that finger you wish to shove up our anuses... isn't that a little, well, uh, homoerotic? The closet opens and reveals all...

Galdago and others, you have my assurance that this wee Brit will be in solidarity with you on the day in question.

EDIT - bugger, just noticed that about four other people have made the same points as me. Ah, well... great minds think alike, eh?

Since Bush's explicit pronoucement against homosexual marriages and support for the second constitutional amendment ever to take away rights from the individual (the first being prohibition), the queer community and its sympathizers have been under assault by the ultra-conservative far-right. Despite recent victories in the senate against the amendment, it is important to show that we have not forgotten that LGBT individuals are still treated as second-class citizens in a country founded on egalitarianism, an equal opportunity for all. It is too clear of a clichéd Orwellian nightmare that some people are "more equal than others" in this land of the free where the government doles out countless benefits and rights to people who fit its conceptual model of a "wholesome way of life."

That is why on October 8th, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals are uniting in a coallition to boycott and "drop out" of their participation in the economic system of this country for a day. Read more about the scheduled "drop out" and lend your support by participating and spreading the word.

Boycott for Equality (http://www.boycottforequality.org)

Oh yeah! And I heard on September 11th, everyone's going to come out with a candle, and they'll take a picture from space!

/sarcasm

I object to this forums use of the Pink Triangle as the button for reporting a bad post. It should be used for something good!

Let me just say this about that. Civil rights are not now and have never been solely about race. They are not special rights extended to a group on the basis of race or the sole province of any racial minority. Civil rights are rights extended to an individual on the basis of citizenship in this country and concern rights granted by the 13th and 14th Amendments. Specifically, these rights include but are not limited to: due process, equal protection under the law and freedom from discrimination. So to say that this isn’t a civil rights issue is to show a complete lack of understanding of what “civil rights” actually are.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address in 1801 said the following: Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

This seems to sum up the whole shebang quite nicely.

Minority viewpoints are an essential part of the United States. While you are most certainly free to disagree with these viewpoints, you must, out of the same sense of freedom that allows you to disagree with a viewpoint, protect the right of individuals to express those viewpoints. Furthermore, in order for our laws to have meaning within a grander scope, you must also protect the rights and freedoms of those minority groups. Law that does not seek to accommodate both the will of the majority and the importance of the minority is simple mob rule tyranny and not fit to be called “law”.

It seems odd that in a day and age when almost half of all marriages end in divorce, when Brittany Spears has probably had smoking and eating binges that lasted longer than her first wedding and is now contemplating getting married again, where The Bennifer Syndrome can reduce the institution of marriage to a public relations spectacle and where reality TV shows offer money to people who successfully cheat, lie and deceive their way to the altar, that there is anything still “sacred” about this institution. Mind you, all of that is without the issue of “gay marriage” even being involved. Here are a group of people who not only respect the institution so much that they wish to claim it publicly, but are willing to subject themselves to very public examples of hatred and discrimination simply in order to make this bond. Indeed, the resolve and passion showed by these people should be welcomed by marriage advocates as an example of the importance of an institution that many feel is either outdated or impractical given our modern world.

There’s also the point of “civil unions” vs. “marriage”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t one of the fundamental arguments against “gay marriage” that it is not “equal” laws, but “special” laws? Many people, however, seem to be quite all right with allowing “civil unions”, which actually creates a wholly new type of social contract, just to exclude others from an already existing form of social contract. Isn’t this contradictory reasoning?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT! We didn't talk about a protest at the last International Secret Conspirecy for the Advancement of the Homosexual Agenda meeting! When are we going to fit it in? I've got shopping to do, a pedicure, get my eyebrows plukked, and who know's what. You can't just call a protest like that....

I'd like to remind you what we agreed to do, and the time line (please see below if the pills from the weekend are still going strong). Please don't move away from this, or I'll tell your boyfriend about that ugly troll you didn't want anyone to see you with in the sauna.....

The Homosexual Agenda

8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.

8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.


8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.


8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.


8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.


8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.


8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.


8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.


9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.


9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."


10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).


10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.


11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.


12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.


12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.


1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.


2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.


3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.


4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.


4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.


6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.


6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"

7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the photographic displays at Abercrombie & Fitch and go to a cool store to begin shopping.

8:30 p.m. Light dinner with catty homosexual friends at a restaurant you will be "over" by the time it gets its first review in the local paper.


10:30 p.m. Cocktails at a debauched gay bar, trying to avoid alcoholic queens who can't navigate a crowd with a lit cigarette in one hand and a Stoli in a cheap plastic cup in the other. Make audible remark about how "trashy" people who still think smoking is acceptable are.


12:00 a.m. "Nightcap at your place." Find out that people lie in bars, too.

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT! We didn't talk about a protest at the last International Secret Conspirecy for the Advancement of the Homosexual Agenda meeting! When are we going to fit it in? I've got shopping to do, a pedicure, get my eyebrows plukked, and who know's what. You can't just call a protest like that....

I'd like to remind you what we agreed to do, and the time line (please see below if the pills from the weekend are still going strong). Please don't move away from this, or I'll tell your boyfriend about that ugly troll you didn't want anyone to see you with in the sauna.....

The Homosexual Agenda

8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.

8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.


8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.


8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.


8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.


8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.


8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.


8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.


9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.


9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."


10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).


10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.


11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.


12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.


12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.


1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.


2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.


3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.


4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.


4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.


6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.


6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"

7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the photographic displays at Abercrombie & Fitch and go to a cool store to begin shopping.

8:30 p.m. Light dinner with catty homosexual friends at a restaurant you will be "over" by the time it gets its first review in the local paper.


10:30 p.m. Cocktails at a debauched gay bar, trying to avoid alcoholic queens who can't navigate a crowd with a lit cigarette in one hand and a Stoli in a cheap plastic cup in the other. Make audible remark about how "trashy" people who still think smoking is acceptable are.


12:00 a.m. "Nightcap at your place." Find out that people lie in bars, too.



Now THAT'S hilarious! xD

Well, our Agenda has unfortunately been revealed to the public (http://www.bettybowers.com),so I didn't see any harm in posting it here. After all, if we make an unexpected change to this years Fall fashion, all the heterosexual women will be in such panic they'll drag their husbands to the stores to re-do their wardrobe that we can still use it with some slight modifications.

What I'd like to know, is why the US is effectively trying to pass homophobia? Isn't it the land of political freedom?

Ah well, thats the Dubya administration for ya.

And no, I'm not going to protest, as I live in the Blair administration, where they don't care if you're gay, straight, or a serial killer, as long as you don't smoke or drive.

Yeah, "the homosexual lifestyle" has been quite a tricky term given there seem to be those in the queer community who carry on typical domestic lifestyles and those who seem to be extremely promiscuous. It seems the latter always gets more attention from opponents, though the irony is that speculation is that these folks simply don't comprise the largest portion. I honestly can't come up with any better term myself, besides maybe "endulging my sexual preferences," and that's just lengthy, hee! ;) And yes, I'm aware that the World's Best Christian is just a huge parody. Now as far as the matter of the unions themselves...

The facts that most aren't privy to are that there are over 300 rights afforded by the government to couples who are married. Gay couples, on the other hand, who care greatly about each other whether others can accept that reality or not, have to resort to very expensive legal processes to have lawyers draw up Power of Attourney, Medical Power of Attourney, Living Wills, and other various documents that are not necessary for couples with marriage contracts. It's more than just a tax break. It's a matter of a person's partner making end-of-life care decisions for them, being granted rights of visitation while they're in the hospital, being able to inherit lawfully without the interference of parents, being granted visitation should they be imprisoned, and dear God does the list ever go on and on.

I understand Christianity not wanting to grant marriages to the gay couples, but the problem is that if the government recognizes the marriage, what recognition has the couple been given by the religious rite? Absolutely none. Therefore there's no reason for them to be concerned if the government allows the practice. The government is supposed to be run absent of any religious conviction and should remain thusly. If the government is going to tangle itself up in the institution of granting marriage licenses, then it should do it on an equitable basis and distribute these numerous rights to all through uniform issuance of marriage licenses. Homosexual couples should not be forced to pay exhorbitant fees to lawyers just so they can enjoy the same civil liberties as any similar heterosexual married couple. It makes them second-class citizens and it's a degrading and dehumanizing stigma for queers.

While I understand stigma against homosexuals may never be completely erradicated, it is important to unravel the travesty step by step. Stephen Ainlay wrote back in '86:

A growing awareness of the dynamics of stigma in society has fostered a variety of responses among the public, from movements that attempt to counter social oppression to support groups for a wide variety of stigmatized conditions. Even though we will not succeed in completely eradicating stigma from society, effective use of the concept in social science endeavors may enable us to better understand ourselves and our social environment, which may in turn make possible individual efforts to move beyond the experience of stigma.
Perhaps it doesn't add up to you why being denied some right is such a dehumanizing ordeal, but I think George Kateb explained it best back in '92:

At the same time, there are other theories that seem to affirm human dignity yet give rights only a lesser or probationary or instrumental role. Examples are utilitarianism, recent communitarianism, recent republicanism, and radical egalitarianism. The first and last I will return to shortly, my response to the others appears here and there in this volume. All I wish to say now is that unless rights come first they are not rights. They will tend to be sacrificed to some purpose deemed higher than the equal dignity of every individual or inviolability of each individual. The group or the majority or the good or the sacred or the vague future will be preferred. The beneficiaries will be victimized along with the victims because no one is being treated as a person who is irreplaceable and beyond value. To make rights anything but primary, even though in the name of human dignity, is to injure human dignity.

To the matter of polygamy, I think Austrivum made an excellent point in a post on another forum:

However, bans on polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. apply across the board, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Take polygamy for an example. It doesn't matter whether you are:
A man who wants many wives
A woman who wants many husbands
A man who wants many husbands
A woman who wants many wives
The ban on polygamy applies in each situation, no segment of the population is being carved out and forbidden from having many spouses. That is just one example, although it can be fitted to any of the others that some try to compare to gay marriage.

I hold marriage (be it Civil or Religious) to be sacred. Let me define what I feel sacred means, just so there's no confusion about what I'm saying.

Sacred (to me) means something that should be treated with respect, cared for, nurtured, and not just thrown away because you're tired of it.

There are many things that are sacred to me. The Earth, animals, humans.... I could go on for a long time. When I say something is sacred, I don't mean sacred like the Bible... I just mean that it's something worthy of respect.

I agree that the Church should keep its nose out of affairs of State. I also agree that the State should keep its nose out of affairs of the Church. While civil unions are regarded by many to be "just legal contracts" there are still promises made by the couple. Those promises, I feel, should be held in the highest regard within that union. To me that means that they are sacred. I guess sacred sounds too religious for me to be using it in the way I do, but that's how I've always understood the word.

So, again, to me, sacred=held in the highest regard. I think the church has gotten ahold of a lot of words and "churchified" them. Anyway, may you all be blessed.

Yeah, I know what you mean Mana, and I agree. The church seems to think they have a monopoly on certain words and concepts. Marrige is a big one :p.

Of course, they forget that some churches were marrying people of the same sex. ;)