NationStates Jolt Archive

I know, I know--shocking news that a piece of shit legislation that everyone knew was going to fail, did so (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13181735/), and along party lines. The only Democrat to vote for the measure was Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and when you're talking about a measure that would have taken 60 votes to end debate on and 67 to pass, getting one person from the opposing party ain't gonna get you far.

The only reason I'm posting this is to answer a question Orrin Hatch posed at the end of the article. He was responding to a statement by Ted Kennedy.
Hatch responded: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?”

To which I reply, if Kennedy isn't saying it, I am. Yes--over half the US Senate is a crew of bigots.

Oh - good!

This would-be ban contravenes States Rights.

They'll probably reintroduce the bill again. Fucking Bush and the Republicans are just trying to appease their conservative base so that they can keep their jobs in the November elections.

Oh - good!

This would-be ban contravenes States Rights.

This shouldnt even be a states rights issue. If a church wants to give same-sex marriages, the government is in no place to tell them not to.

The argument can go even further and say a marriage by a church should have absolutely no legal implications. A seperate union to gain the rights marriage gives now should be required instead.

Wow failed completely, you'd almost think it's a cynical attempt to get votes this election cycle.

This shouldnt even be a states rights issue. If a church wants to give same-sex marriages, the government is in no place to tell them not to.

The argument can go even further and say a marriage by a church should have absolutely no legal implications. A seperate union to gain the rights marriage gives now should be required instead.


Marriages are the legal purview of the States, and not the purview of either the Federal Government or the churches.

The Fed Govt has no right ( 9th and 10th Amendment ) to tell Arizona that it can't ban Gay Marriage, and it has no right to tell Massachussetts that it can't legalise Gay Marriage either!

Oh - good!

This would-be ban contravenes States Rights.

This ban tramples all over small government and most conservative values.

1) It smashes states rights. Anything that a majority of the country doesn't like you can't do, and they can tell you that even if they don't have to deal with it.
2) It tells religious organizations what they can and cannot do in their sacred rituals.

Marriages are the legal purview of the States, and not the purview of either the Federal Government or the churches.

The Fed Govt has no right ( 9th and 10th Amendment ) to tell Arizon that it can't ban Gay Marriage, and it has no right to tell Massachussetts that it can't legalise Gay Marriage either!
Full faith and credit clause--marriage is first and foremost a contract, and contracts are supposed to be honored by other states, no matter which state they originate in. That's what all the hubbub is about.

This ban tramples all over small government and most conservative values.

1) It smashes states rights. Anything that a majority of the country doesn't like you can't do, and they can tell you that even if they don't have to deal with it.
2) It tells religious organizations what they can and cannot do in their sacred rituals.

Ministers have their powers to marry someone from the Sovereign State of ( fill in yours ) - and not from the Federal Government or the Bishop either.

I said I opposed the ban, right?

Full faith and credit clause--marriage is first and foremost a contract, and contracts are supposed to be honored by other states, no matter which state they originate in. That's what all the hubbub is about.

Bit of a hapless frog-reasoning ( by the hubbub-makers ) if you ask me.

( Judge Roberts, hapless toad interstate commerce ( should one wish to google it )

Marriages are the legal purview of the States, and not the purview of either the Federal Government or the churches.

The Fed Govt has no right ( 9th and 10th Amendment ) to tell Arizon that it can't ban Gay Marriage, and it has no right to tell Massachussetts that it can't legalise Gay Marriage either!

Well where does it stop then? Why is there even federal law in the first place? All laws should only pertain to states.

Bit of a hapless frog-reasoning ( by the hubbub-makers ) if you ask me.

( Judge Roberts, hapless toad interstate commerce ( should one wish to google it )Well, it's been a concern for a long time, so much so that the Congress passed and Clinton signed DOMA in the 90's, the "Defense of Marriage Act" which allowed states to not have to recognize marriages from other states if they so desired. The reason for the Amendment is that lots of people think (in my opinion, correctly) that DOMA is unconstitutional and will fail a challenge. Until recently, there was no way to challenge it, because no state had a same-sex marriage provision. Enter Massachussetts, followed closely by this Amendment.

The Full Faith and Credit clause argument is by no means a slam-dunk, but it is the single largest threat to DOMA that exists, and the wingers know it.

So if somebody doesn't vote your way they're a bigot?
Fuck you.

Well where does it stop then? Why is there even federal law in the first place? All laws should only pertain to states.


Now you're thinking like a conservative. Atleast in the small government area.

So if somebody doesn't vote your way they're a bigot?
Fuck you.

bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Short answer: Yes.

Fuck you.

You're really not my type. The last thing I want is some needy closet-case bottom.

Oh, shit Bush...what are you going to do now? The gay card flopped horribly and you're still at 30% approval; now, no one is going to forget Iraq or inflation when they go to the polls in November...shit!

Once again, the American people prove that they are not as susceptible to pandering as they were a few years ago...quite a good sign if you ask me. I guess the country realized that preventing gay marriage really wouldn't solve anything because...drumroll...it would have absolutely zero effect on you or the validity of your marriage!

Now you're thinking like a conservative. Atleast in the small government area.

Yeah, but why should someone in one state have to move to another because he is gay and wants to marry the man he loves?

Because despite how we often think of it Americans are not one culture. Just because your area is liberal does not mean it has the right to force it's views on the conservative states. Just as the conservative states have no business forcing theirs on the liberals.

There was no DOMA for interracial marriage, and we got through that just fine (Even if some states didn't catch on til the 60s).

So if somebody doesn't vote your way they're a bigot?
Fuck you.
Not at all--but if they vote to enshrine bigotry into the US Constitution, they're bigots. Nice try, though--not.:rolleyes:

So if somebody doesn't vote your way they're a bigot?
Fuck you.
If the shoe fits ...

Because despite how we often think of it Americans are not one culture. Just because your area is liberal does not mean it has the right to force it's views on the conservative states. Just as the conservative states have no business forcing theirs on the liberals.

There was no DOMA for interracial marriage, and we got through that just fine (Even if some states didn't catch on til the 60s).
And I think that's the reason why there's such a push for an amendment--gay haters don't want a gay version of Loving v Virginia and they sense one coming.

Not at all--but if they vote to enshrine bigotry into the US Constitution, they're bigots. Nice try, though--not.:rolleyes:

No they aren't.
They are simply leaving it unchanged.

No they aren't.
They are simply leaving it unchanged.

What the hell planet do you live on?

Not at all--but if they vote to enshrine bigotry into the US Constitution, they're bigots. Nice try, though--not.:rolleyes:
This is like the anti-flag burning amendments that crop up from year to year. They're bad because they would be the only place in the whole Constitution that limits a person's rights. Now if the Congress would pass some amendments, or even a couple laws, that would limit some more government powers, we might be headed in the right direction.

Good thing half of the senate has a heart that's NOT made of stone.

No they aren't.
They are simply leaving it unchanged.
How so the this legislation was for the express purpose of CHANGING the constitution.

How can you change the constitution while leaving it "unchanged"

bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Short answer: Yes.

Sounds like that argument says anyone who thinks for themselves is a bigot...

No they aren't.
They are simply leaving it unchanged.


Wait, adding an ammendment to the constitution means it's unchanged?

I'm so confused!

Isnt it funny how conservatives cry states rights when they argue the overturning of Roe but have no problem removing states rights on the issue. Double Standard anyone? btw Im glad this failed miserably, which is most likely what is going to happen to the rest of the conservative agenda in the future.

How so the this legislation was for the express purpose of CHANGING the constitution.

How can you change the constitution while leaving it "unchanged"

Because it's purpose was to eliminate the upcoming amendment.
Which in turn leaves it unchanged.

Sounds like that argument says anyone who thinks for themselves is a bigot...

Yes that was the point.

Because it's purpose was to eliminate the upcoming amendment.
Which in turn leaves it unchanged.

So a change to eliminate a change is not a change? What the hell are you talking about?

Because it's purpose was to eliminate the upcoming amendment.
Which in turn leaves it unchanged.
Ok I will make the question simpler

Can you read?

If so you may want to actualy read what they were trying to do.

The Consitituion and it's Amendments are meant as a doctrine of what the government can not do to the people, not what the people cannot do within the government.

Good thing half of the senate has a heart that's NOT made of stone.

The heart doesnt think, it feels. And I hope that our government never gives up thought for feeling.

This is like the anti-flag burning amendments that crop up from year to year. They're bad because they would be the only place in the whole Constitution that limits a person's rights. Now if the Congress would pass some amendments, or even a couple laws, that would limit some more government powers, we might be headed in the right direction.Speaking of which--that's up next on the Senate's agenda this week. So glad they have their priorities in order.

So a change to eliminate a change is not a change? What the hell are you talking about?

They simply created a fence to close down the future change.
In this way, all is well.

No they aren't.
They are simply leaving it unchanged.
Were you dropped on your head as a child?

They simply created a fence to close down the future change.
In this way, all is well.
Then your origional statement of
No they aren't.
They are simply leaving it unchanged.

Is in correct ... as they had to make a change to make your "fence"

Do you know what the word "unchanged" means?

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Stop freaking out like a fucking faggot and stick to the topic.

Stop freaking out like a fucking faggot and stick to the topic.
I'm not the flamer here. ;)

And you're the one who nonsensically left the topic behind.

Stop freaking out like a fucking faggot and stick to the topic.


Hey is there a varient of Godwin's law for calling the opponent a fag?

This is off topic so I apoligise in advance and hope for a quick answer.

What with the US having it's crazy state system of govt., would a gay marriage in a state that allows it be valid in a state that doesn't?

This is off topic so I apoligise in advance and hope for a quick answer.

What with the US having it's crazy state system of govt., would a gay marriage in a state that allows it be valid in a state that doesn't?
I mentioned it earlier--the Full faith and credit clause of the constitution reads Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.In other words, contracts that are binding in one state are binding in all 50, and since marriage is a contract between two people...

Oh well maybe next time.

This is off topic so I apoligise in advance and hope for a quick answer.

What with the US having it's crazy state system of govt., would a gay marriage in a state that allows it be valid in a state that doesn't?
not right now because of the DOMA. But many feel that DOMA is unconstitutionnal because it violates the full faith and credit clauses that states that contract in one state is valid in every state.

Oh well maybe next time.
Thats what they said last time ... and the time before that ... and the time before that.

I dont see the left giving into those fucktards over this issue

I mentioned it earlier--the Full faith and credit clause of the constitution reads In other words, contracts that are binding in one state are binding in all 50, and since marriage is a contract between two people...

Smashing, figured it would be something like that but couldn't be bother reading a whole tread that was bound to degenerate into a flame war.

Incidentally, with this idea, why is it inportant to have gay marrage allowed in all states? Surely just having a few liberal states dotted around the country will allow gay people to get married?

Thats what they said last time ... and the time before that ... and the time before that.

I dont see the left giving into those fucktards over this issue

That's because this is an issue of personal civil rights. That's a pretty deep subject.

Oh well maybe next time.
There you go, you've got that positive, go-getter spirit. I see you going places with your hatred for all of us.


I'm very glad this amendment got burnt. I don't think its going to come back up for quite a while, but hopefully never.

I'm also thinking that the feds should back off, let the states have a tad more breathing room, anyone agree? This is a more local issue, in my opinion... sure there are gays everywhere, but really...does the government need to tell us what to do with gays in San Francisco, while I'm in New York?

Let them be gay there. If my state decides that they can get married here, I'll be ok with that too. I'm not gay, but so long as thats respected, I've got absolutely no problem with homosexuals.

Thats what they said last time ... and the time before that ... and the time before that.

I dont see the left giving into those fucktards over this issue
And since getting an amendment passed is so difficult, and since the long term demographics favor acceptance of same sex marriage, there's practically no chance that it will pass, as long as the left puts up any resistance at all to it.

Smashing, figured it would be something like that but couldn't be bother reading a whole tread that was bound to degenerate into a flame war.

Incidentally, with this idea, why is it inportant to have gay marrage allowed in all states? Surely just having a few liberal states dotted around the country will allow gay people to get married?
That would be the pragmatic thing … and hopefully that would happen. But ideally the rest of the states would learn about equality then I wont have to go out of state just to have a ceremony (I would love for my friends and family to be there)

And since getting an amendment passed is so difficult, and since the long term demographics favor acceptance of same sex marriage, there's practically no chance that it will pass, as long as the left puts up any resistance at all to it.
They better keep putting up resistance, issues like these are one of the few things drawing people to that party

Smashing, figured it would be something like that but couldn't be bother reading a whole tread that was bound to degenerate into a flame war.

Incidentally, with this idea, why is it inportant to have gay marrage allowed in all states? Surely just having a few liberal states dotted around the country will allow gay people to get married?
It's a federal issue because there are a ton of federal rights that are conferred upon married couples--issues involving inheritance, joint filing of taxes, adoption, etc. These are all things that are done automatically upon marriage, and since the feds don't recognize it right now, that means that even in states that have legalized it--Massachussetts, for instance--same sex couples can't file their income taxes jointly, just to give one example.

with the vast amount of divorce in america why dont they just ban marriage all together and then there would be no reason for gays to want to get married. They only want to get married for the tax breaks etc anyway. Besides why would anyone want to vote against gay anything, with Two Incomes and No Kids (TINKS) they can buy the persuasion of any government leader.
Sadly marriage as a whole here has gone to the dump as people who live together in a commited relationship tend to out last the average marriage. So instead of just fighting gay marriage maybe the government should start looking at why the family systems of the 1950's are not working today and start working with the nuclear and "chosen" families that people of this generation are growing up in or making.

It's a federal issue because there are a ton of federal rights that are conferred upon married couples--issues involving inheritance, joint filing of taxes, adoption, etc. These are all things that are done automatically upon marriage, and since the feds don't recognize it right now, that means that even in states that have legalized it--Massachussetts, for instance--same sex couples can't file their income taxes jointly, just to give one example.

Ah, back to the silly state v. federal issue. One of the advantages of Britains' centralised govt., when they said same sex unions were legal they just were, no screwing about.

I was just reading some responses to the main posts and I just wanted to clarify something. A lot of you are talking about churches and religions and they're right to choose. This is true in churches personally be allowed to marry anyone, however, religion "technically" has nothing to do with marriage. One main reason for founding the U.S. was secularism, separation of church and state. Marriage is a legal, state matter; tradition just has most marriages taking place in churches by religious figures. Therefore, for the government to come forward and say the sanctity of marriage is based on the church's opinion would be the beginning of the downfall of the state and what this country is built upon.

Personally, I'm glad to see the bill fail, but it's sad and fasniating to watch history repeat it's self. Everything that is taking place now is all very familar and parallel to fifty years ago during such controversies as Brown vs. the Board of Education and even laws against marriage between whites and blacks.

with the vast amount of divorce in america why dont they just ban marriage all together and then there would be no reason for gays to want to get married. They only want to get married for the tax breaks etc anyway snip
No more then hetrosexuals do

We want to do it as a combination of expresing our love to eachother, joining ourselfs to eachother as well as have the ability to you know visit eachother in the hospital and silly things like that

No more then hetrosexuals do

We want to do it as a combination of expresing our love to eachother, joining ourselfs to eachother as well as have the ability to you know visit eachother in the hospital and silly things like that
Isn't it amazing how some people like to turn gays into these cold, calculating, heartless beings who are only after marriage for the money? Obviously, they know no one who is gay.

They'll probably reintroduce the bill again. Fucking Bush and the Republicans are just trying to appease their conservative base so that they can keep their jobs in the November elections.

If they are trying to "appease their conservative base", how do you explain the fact that their position on illegal immigration is overwhelmingly and vehemently opposed by "their conservative base"?

They are simply being conservative, which means preserving what has gone on since the beginning of time...marriage has always been between man and woman (sometimes between man and women, nevertheless...) and has always been understood to be so.

They are simply opposing a radical change in the definition of marriage.

This shouldnt even be a states rights issue. If a church wants to give same-sex marriages, the government is in no place to tell them not to.

The argument can go even further and say a marriage by a church should have absolutely no legal implications. A seperate union to gain the rights marriage gives now should be required instead.

As I understand it, any church can marry whoever they want.. just wont be recognized under the law >.> and technically... marriage by a church has no legal implications.. Its the marriage lisense you apply for which give you your legal rights.

Isn't it amazing how some people like to turn gays into these cold, calculating, heartless beings who are only after marriage for the money? Obviously, they know no one who is gay.
Yeah its all various ways of slandering what they don’t understand

They try to make us look like we are only interested in the tax portion of marriage.

Or they try to make us look over emotional.

Or another big one is trying to make us look like the epitome of lust.

Idiots

Now it appers that the President can't do anything at all if it involves the Senate.

President: "We're going to do 'this' and 'this'"
Senate: "No. We're not."
President: :(

If they are trying to "appease their conservative base", how do you explain the fact that their position on illegal immigration is overwhelmingly and vehemently opposed by "their conservative base"?

Those facing elections are for closing the boarder. Those not are appeasing lobbyists by taking a neutral stance they can go back on later.

You must be new to the game if you're fooled by that.

I know, I know--shocking news that a piece of shit legislation that everyone knew was going to fail, did so (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13181735/), and along party lines. The only Democrat to vote for the measure was Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and when you're talking about a measure that would have taken 60 votes to end debate on and 67 to pass, getting one person from the opposing party ain't gonna get you far.

The only reason I'm posting this is to answer a question Orrin Hatch posed at the end of the article. He was responding to a statement by Ted Kennedy.


To which I reply, if Kennedy isn't saying it, I am. Yes--over half the US Senate is a crew of bigots.

This just shows why we need more GOP in both the Senate and the House; it was the Senate who failed to impeach Clinton and now this.

[QUOTE=Dodudodu]There you go, you've got that positive, go-getter spirit. I see you going places with your hatred for all of us.

I don’t hate any of you. I find you life choice a disgusting one, but what you decide to do behind closed doors is up to you, but I believe marriage is between a man and woman, that is my personal belief and just because I do not agree with gay marriage I guess I must “hate” all gays. I do not believe in gay marriage, my opinion, and just because it differs from yours means nothing it is again a personal belief, you believe other wise.

Do I believe this is a Constitutional issue??? No, with other issues like immigration, Iran, Iraq, the environment, energy and so many other this should be at the very bottom of the pile. It should be a State issue, let the voters off a State decide the issue, and whether it should be law in that state and if they should recognize the marriage (law) from another state.

Again this is my opinion, for me it is a moral issue not a Constitutional issue, or a religious one, I find the whole gay issue gross and unnatural, again my opinion and belief. A man having sex with another man or a woman with another woman is nothing less then sick and gross.

So if somebody doesn't vote your way they're a bigot?
Fuck you.

If not voting a certain way involves unfair discrimination against a particular group just because they are different - then, well, not voting that way is bigotry.

[QUOTE=Dodudodu]There you go, you've got that positive, go-getter spirit. I see you going places with your hatred for all of us.

I don’t hate any of you. I find you life choice a disgusting one, but what you decide to do behind closed doors is up to you, but I believe marriage is between a man and woman, that is my personal belief and just because I do not agree with gay marriage I guess I must “hate” all gays. I do not believe in gay marriage, my opinion, and just because it differs from yours means nothing it is again a personal belief, you believe other wise.

Do I believe this is a Constitutional issue??? No, with other issues like immigration, Iran, Iraq, the environment, energy and so many other this should be at the very bottom of the pile. It should be a State issue, let the voters off a State decide the issue, and whether it should be law in that state and if they should recognize the marriage (law) from another state.

Again this is my opinion, for me it is a moral issue not a Constitutional issue, or a religious one, I find the whole gay issue gross and unnatural, again my opinion and belief. A man having sex with another man or a woman with another woman is nothing less then sick and gross.


What makes it unnatural? it exists in nature ...

If not voting a certain way involves unfair discrimination against a particular group just because they are different - then, well, not voting that way is bigotry.

Voting to ban gay marriage is the only Christian thing to do; we are protecting them from sinning even more by destroying holy matrimony.

Voting to ban gay marriage is the only Christian thing to do; we are protecting them from sinning even more by destroying holy matrimony.

I'm still waiting on that constitutional ammendment to ban divorce, and Atheists.

What I found to be intriguing is that they lost a vote in this "test." Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire changed sides.

Remember the ERA and it constantly being brought up and failing? The FMA is the new ERA, it's all downhill from here for the Republicans on this issue.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas says there will be people "called into account' over their votes on this thing, I couldn't agree more. In many US states, this whole thing is viewed as a waste of time. More and more Congresscritters and Senators will start losing votes and subsequently, their jobs over this, especially if they keep drinking from this particular well.

Yes, Orrin Hatch, 50% of the Senate are bigots.

The United States has far worse problems than us queers wanting to get married. So breathe into a paper bag, calm down, and do some REAL work please.

Voting to ban gay marriage is the only Christian thing to do; we are protecting them from sinning even more by destroying holy matrimony.

Oh God, not you again...the self-proclaimed Biblical expert and reader of God's mind.

I would laugh at you if you weren't such a pathetically sad person.

So if somebody doesn't vote your way they're a bigot?
Fuck you.

Not because they didn't vote my way, but because they obviously believe a specific group of people are inferior - at least believe they should have inferior rights - based on a genetically-determined trait.

That makes them bigots.

As I understand it, any church can marry whoever they want.. just wont be recognized under the law >.> and technically... marriage by a church has no legal implications.. Its the marriage lisense you apply for which give you your legal rights.

Then any 2 consenting adults should be able to obtain a marriage license.

They are simply being conservative, which means preserving what has gone on since the beginning of time...marriage has always been between man and woman (sometimes between man and women, nevertheless...) and has always been understood to be so.


Because we've never been wrong about anything before, right? :confused:

Voting to ban gay marriage is the only Christian thing to do; we are protecting them from sinning even more by destroying holy matrimony.

The real christian thing to do would be to stop throwing stones...but youre just another hypocrite.

Voting to ban gay marriage is the only Christian thing to do; we are protecting them from sinning even more by destroying holy matrimony.
The real christian thing to do would be to stop throwing stones...but youre just another hypocrite.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Haven't I heard that somewhere???

[QUOTE=I H8t you all]


What makes it unnatural? it exists in nature ...

True, to a point it does exist, but also much that is looked on as homosexual behavior in nature is more along the line of dominance. Wolves for example, the dominate male will hump lesser males until they submit; this is not to say homosexual behavior does not happen in nature.

But again homosexual behavior in humans in my opinion is wrong sick and gross. Humans are the only animal that can make a couscous choice to act. Just can’t see why a man would/could fall in love with another man or a woman with woman.. I think it is wrong end of story.

But again homosexual behavior in humans in my opinion is wrong sick and gross. Humans are the only animal that can make a couscous choice to act. Just can’t see why a man would/could fall in love with another man or a woman with woman.. I think it is wrong end of story.

Ah, because you're God. Since it doesn't make sense to you, you can't understand it, it must be WRONG. Gotcha. You're always right.

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]

True, to a point it does exist, but also much that is looked on as homosexual behavior in nature is more along the line of dominance. Wolves for example, the dominate male will hump lesser males until they submit; this is not to say homosexual behavior does not happen in nature.

But again homosexual behavior in humans in my opinion is wrong sick and gross. Humans are the only animal that can make a couscous choice to act. Just can’t see why a man would/could fall in love with another man or a woman with woman.. I think it is wrong end of story.


Well I don't see how a man could fall in love with a woman. My aren't you glad you're not the minority?

True, to a point it does exist, but also much that is looked on as homosexual behavior in nature is more along the line of dominance. Wolves for example, the dominate male will hump lesser males until they submit; this is not to say homosexual behavior does not happen in nature.



UHHHHHHHHH......................

Ah, because you're God. Since it doesn't make sense to you, you can't understand it, it must be WRONG. Gotcha. You're always right.

I suppose you have never believed yourself to be right in your life?

Leave the guy (or gal) alone, (s)he's expressing what (s)he believes, and that it is a personal opinion. Unless you've never had a personal opinion in your life, all you can do is try to reason with him/her.

Sarcastic, hypocritical statements like you just made are not reasoning.

True, to a point it does exist, but also much that is looked on as homosexual behavior in nature is more along the line of dominance. Wolves for example, the dominate male will hump lesser males until they submit; this is not to say homosexual behavior does not happen in nature.

But again homosexual behavior in humans in my opinion is wrong sick and gross. Humans are the only animal that can make a couscous choice to act. Just can’t see why a man would/could fall in love with another man or a woman with woman.. I think it is wrong end of story.
Personaly I dont care what you think is wrong in deciding my actions.

I did choose to act ... not in my sexual prefference ... but in deciding to engage in a long homosexual relationship

Though things did not work out between us that was the best 2 years of my life.

...I think it is wrong end of story.

Why is it that people like yourself always lay out that one without ever giving any insight as to your reasoning? Can you please at least try to explain yourself in a fashion that illustrates you POV? I personally would really like a look into your brain on this one. Why do you find it icky?

[QUOTE=I H8t you all]


Well I don't see how a man could fall in love with a woman. My aren't you glad you're not the minority?


Actually, I am not in the minority, most people in the US believe that marriage is between a man and woman, also they feel that gays should not be a “protected” minority. Many more people believe as I do on this issue.

I also believe that all pedophiles should be locked up forever, that polygamy and bestiality should be illegal.

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]

True, to a point it does exist, but also much that is looked on as homosexual behavior in nature is more along the line of dominance. Wolves for example, the dominate male will hump lesser males until they submit; this is not to say homosexual behavior does not happen in nature.

But again homosexual behavior in humans in my opinion is wrong sick and gross. Humans are the only animal that can make a couscous choice to act. Just can’t see why a man would/could fall in love with another man or a woman with woman.. I think it is wrong end of story.

Firstly, and pedantically, how does one go about making a couscous choice? Just intrigued.

Secondly, I would suggest you support your assertions. Homosexuality is, I am informed, a psychological impulse/ inclination, thus it is naturally occurring, and, I would hope, its toleration is evidence of the civility of modern society.

Pertinent to the issue itself, I can fully comprehend the objections made against homosexual marriage. A civil union possesses, in the UK at least, the same legal ramifications as marraige, but no moral obligations. Marriage has religious connotations that, irrespective of their justification, exclude homosexual marriage, thus I fail to see why a religious establishment should be cowed and forced to act against their will so as that homosexuals can act as they choose.

I suppose you have never believed yourself to be right in your life?

Leave the guy (or gal) alone, (s)he's expressing what (s)he believes, and that it is a personal opinion. Unless you've never had a personal opinion in your life, all you can do is try to reason with him/her.

Sarcastic, hypocritical statements like you just made are not reasoning.

No, I've thought I was right. I've just never tried to force other people to live according to what I thought was right. See the difference?

By banning it, he wants to force them to adhere to his belief. By allowing it to occur, he gives people the choice to act according to their own beliefs - whether or not their beliefs agree with his.

I hoped that this ammendment would flop, as it has before, but I can't say that I was sure it was going to. I don't really have my 'finger on the pulse of the US', but nothing coming out of your country (or that country, if you aren't a UnitedStatesian) surprises me anymore.

This may not suprise me, but it makes me very, very happy. Thank you, USA...this will definately have an impact on a similar debate within my own country.

Marriage has religious connotations that, irrespective of their justification, exclude homosexual marriage, thus I fail to see why a religious establishment should be cowed and forced to act against their will so as that homosexuals can act as they choose.

In the US, marriage is a legal union.

No religious group in the US would be forced to recognize or perform homosexual marriages against their will even if a law making homosexual marriage legal were passed. Our seperation of church and state guarantees that. A Catholic hospital can choose not to perform abortions or distribute contraception. A church can fire a minister for being gay.

Sounds like that argument says anyone who thinks for themselves is a bigot...

Wrong. The GOP wants to force their ideals and religious morality on EVERYONE because they think they are superior. Introducing legislation and changing the Constitution in order to curtail the rights of specific groups goes against the very principles the Constitution embodies.

Senator Kennedy was correct in calling these GOP bashers biggots. Thats exactly what they are. And they are not thinking for themselves, they are a collective of ignorant dinosaurs who want to foist their bible thumping bullshit on everyone else. :rolleyes:

Pertinent to the issue itself, I can fully comprehend the objections made against homosexual marriage. A civil union possesses, in the UK at least, the same legal ramifications as marraige, but no moral obligations. Marriage has religious connotations that, irrespective of their justification, exclude homosexual marriage, thus I fail to see why a religious establishment should be cowed and forced to act against their will so as that homosexuals can act as they choose.

Marriage is a civil affair quite seperate from the religious ceremonies.

In the US, marriage is a legal union.

No religious group in the US would be forced to recognize or perform homosexual marriages against their will even if a law making homosexual marriage legal were passed. Our seperation of church and state guarantees that. A Catholic hospital can choose not to perform abortions or distribute contraception. A church can fire a minister for being gay.

Thankyou. That might well explain my confusion.

Nonetheless, homosexual marriage ought to be fully legal, given that any establishment can refuse to perform the ceremony.

By banning it, he wants to force them to adhere to his belief.

Funny, because I didn't see anywhere in his post that he had intentions to make it universally illegal.

Reading comprehension, pick it up instead of popping veins over things that aren't there.

Funny, because I didn't see anywhere in his post that he had intentions to make it universally illegal.

Actually, I believe he said he supported the ban. Maybe not "universally", but at least-nationwide. To me that's enough to consider it "forcing".

Edit: I apologize. He did say he didn't believe it to be a Constitutional issue, but I inferred from his statement that allowing states to decide whether or not it would be legal that he would, in fact, vote against allowing it to be legal. Forcing those that lived in his state to live according to his beliefs...

Personaly I dont care what you think is wrong in deciding my actions.

I did choose to act ... not in my sexual prefference ... but in deciding to engage in a long homosexual relationship

Though things did not work out between us that was the best 2 years of my life.

That was your choice. You decided to act on it, fine. It was what you decided to do. It did not work out ok, many relationships don’t it happens. I just can not find any attraction in another man, that is me, what you do behind your closed door is your business not mine, but I should not have to be forced to accept it or believe it is right or normal.
I do know gay people (both male and female) we go watch ball games, go camping and so on, they are friends, but I do not want to sleep with any of them. And yes we do debate the issue and even argue about the right or wrong of it, everyone has there own opinion and ideas on it, but they do not try to convince me it is right and I don’t try to convince them it is wrong we just state our opinions and stance on the issue. They are opinions, and all concerned believe they are right and have the correct point of view, they know they will not change my mind and I know I will not change there’s. They know where I stand and I know where they stand.

People should make up there own minds on the issue, schools should not teach it or try to make it mainstream or attempt to have kids believe it is normal. They should be able to make up there own minds and leave it at that.

Is it right to beat up gays or taunt them in school or any such thing??? NO NOT AT ALL, just as making fun of someone because they are different, over weight, a different race, religion and so on, but giving special considerations or rights to any such group is wrong as well.

Once again, my opinion on gay marriage is that it is wrong and I will never believe it is not, just as many some believe it is ok and should be allowed.

Actually, I am not in the minority, most people in the US believe that marriage is between a man and woman, also they feel that gays should not be a “protected” minority. Many more people believe as I do on this issue.

I also believe that all pedophiles should be locked up forever, that polygamy and bestiality should be illegal.

Actually that's what I said, let me rephrase... Well actually I can't say it any clearer than that.

Imagine if you would for just a moment that roles were reversed. That it was immoral or in cases illegal to be straight. Would that be fair to you? Is it just to deny hospital visitation to your dying girlfriend because you're not legally married? Is it just to deny you marriage because I don't personally see why you'd ever want to have sex with a woman?

My opinions of your sex life should have no impact upon your rights. Not this protected minority bullshit. You have sex with a woman, I personally have sex with a man. The only difference is I can't get married. Ever. If I'm in a life threatening accident there's no gaurentee my partner could make decisions for me, or even see me.

I really don't give a damn who you fuck, it's none of my business. I don't even care who you marry, I just want the same right as you.

They only want to get married for the tax breaks etc anyway.

What tax breaks? When my fiance and I get married, we'll end up paying *more* in taxes than we do now - as would most homosexual couples.

They are simply opposing a radical change in the definition of marriage.

Just like people much like them opposed the "radical change" that allowed blacks and whites to marry.

Consider the states where gay marriage has been stomped down by state laws and amendments.

Those passed by far more than 50 percent.

IIRC, they were around 70 to 80 percent.

It would be a popular issue in most states to support the stifling of gay marriage (even if you think the stifling of gay marriage is a stupid thing - why a government is involved in marriage at all is beyond me).

If you got up in Nebraska and said you were all for gay marriage, I am quite sure you would be voted out of office.

Yay, at least I know US politicians aren't all insane in the membrane. :)

or in cases illegal to be straight.'

It's not illegal to be gay, last I checked.


Actually, I believe he said he supported the ban.
what you do behind your closed door is your business not mine

I don't think so....

Consider the states where gay marriage has been stomped down by state laws and amendments.

Those passed by far more than 50 percent.

IIRC, they were around 70 to 80 percent.

It would be a popular issue in most states to support the stifling of gay marriage (even if you think the stifling of gay marriage is a stupid thing - why a government is involved in marriage at all is beyond me).

If you got up in Nebraska and said you were all for gay marriage, I am quite sure you would be voted out of office.

Lamentable, however it does raise the issue of whether government should act in terms of rationality or public opinion. Personally, I fail to see how homosexual marriage impacts upon those not taking part, thus I fail to see how it can be opposed, but far be it from me to suggest a rational course of action.

Is it right to beat up gays or taunt them in school or any such thing??? NO NOT AT ALL, just as making fun of someone because they are different, over weight, a different race, religion and so on, but giving special considerations or rights to any such group is wrong as well.

No one is talking about special rights or considerations. We are talking about giving them the SAME rights and considerations - something you obviously oppose.

Once again, my opinion on gay marriage is that it is wrong and I will never believe it is not, just as many some believe it is ok and should be allowed.

I believe that being a bigot is wrong, and I will never believe it is not. But I'm not advocating making your views illegal.

'

Actually, I believe he said he supported the ban.

Quote:
what you do behind your closed door is your business not mine


I don't think so....

I actually edited - but I'm still not sure I'm mistaken. He doesn't want to let gay people marry. That's suggesting that other people should living by his beliefs.

As for the other, what about it "don't you think so"? As long as it's legal, why would it be your business? (Are you begging for the bolded qualification?) What my husband (yes, I'm a straight woman) do or do not do behind closed doors in our bedroom is really none of your business unless it violates the rights of someone else...

'

It's not illegal to be gay, last I checked.

It was as recently as 2003.

But I'm not advocating making your views illegal.

Oh, right then. I suppose that if I viewed that killing people for pleasure was a-ok, you wouldn't advocate making my 'views' illegal if I wanted to go kill someone?

I'm sorry, but having the view isn't what anyone is making illegal, and I fail to see how you conclude this unless action is equated to holding a view.

It was as recently as 2003.

Show me.

but I'm still not sure I'm mistaken. He doesn't want to let gay people marry. That's supporting other people living by his beliefs.

Well, let's ask him instead of debating about it:

I H8t you all, can you formalize your position on what you think the legality of homosexual marriage is?

Why is it that people like yourself always lay out that one without ever giving any insight as to your reasoning? Can you please at least try to explain yourself in a fashion that illustrates you POV? I personally would really like a look into your brain on this one. Why do you find it icky?

I can ask you the same thing, why do you find nothing wrong with it??? I find sex between a man and a man/woman with a woman gross, my opinion and there is no real “why: to it, it is just how I feel about it. That would be like asking why is blue my favorite color, it just is…….
Every one has opinions, some of them can be justified and other can’t it is all about personal beliefs and opinions, we all have them and many times they do not match up or fit together, it is what makes us what we are as humans, I think the world would be a very boring place if everyone thought the same.
Some opinions, thoughts and beliefs are on the extreme side and do nothing but harm (extreme religious beliefs, beliefs/opinions based on race and so on) and cause violence, but again that is what makes us all human, whether right or wrong.

Show me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_vs._Texas

Oh, right then. I suppose that if I viewed that killing people for pleasure was a-ok, you wouldn't advocate making my 'views' illegal if I wanted to go kill someone?

I get where you're going with this, but you've chosen a bad example. Killing for pleasure would violate the "dier's" right to life. Your "view" still wouldn't be illegal - but acting on it would, because ACTING on it would violate someone else's rights...

Actually, I believe he said he supported the ban. Maybe not "universally", but at least-nationwide. To me that's enough to consider it "forcing".


Again, my opinion is that it gay marriage should be a law. It is not so much the idea but the wording, my belief is marriage is between a man and a woman, civil unions that would give them property rights, add someone as a partner/spouse would not be objectionable to me, but for me marriage is between a man/woman.

Edit: I apologize. He did say he didn't believe it to be a Constitutional issue, but I inferred from his statement that allowing states to decide whether or not it would be legal that he would, in fact, vote against allowing it to be legal. Forcing those that lived in his state to live according to his beliefs...


I would vote against a Constitutional amendment, but most likely vote for it on a state level, depending on how it was worded. You talk about my forcing my beliefs on others, that may be the case on this issue (I believe it is wrong), but on the other hand your trying to force your belief on my (you believe it is right) no matter what the issue, one side or the other is forcing there beliefs on others. In the US it is a majority that rules, by vote. To end all the controversy on this issue, have a national referendum and let the people speak. That is the basic concept of the Constitution.

I would vote against a Constitutional amendment, but most likely vote for it on a state level, depending on how it was worded. You talk about my forcing my beliefs on others, that may be the case on this issue (I believe it is wrong), but on the other hand your trying to force your belief on my (you believe it is right) no matter what the issue, one side or the other is forcing there beliefs on others. In the US it is a majority that rules, by vote. To end all the controversy on this issue, have a national referendum and let the people speak. That is the basic concept of the Constitution.

No one is forcing their beliefs onto anyone. A change to the definition of marriage is only that, a change to the definition and nothing else. The government is not forcing anyone to delibrately accept homosexuality if people don't. Thats their right to believe what they want. Are they asking you to go out any marry a member of the same sex? No, of course not, same-sex marriage is simply extending rights for members in society. You can keep your personal beliefs as much as you like.

I would vote against a Constitutional amendment, but most likely vote for it on a state level, depending on how it was worded. You talk about my forcing my beliefs on others, that may be the case on this issue (I believe it is wrong), but on the other hand your trying to force your belief on my (you believe it is right) no matter what the issue, one side or the other is forcing there beliefs on others. In the US it is a majority that rules, by vote. To end all the controversy on this issue, have a national referendum and let the people speak. That is the basic concept of the Constitution.
We are not trying to force our beliefe on you ... all we want is for people to stop fucking with our equality

You may believe anything you want.

The majority, simply by virtue of being the majority, has no right to take rights from others. Didn't we learn this during the Civil Rights movement? Or maybe the Civil War?

I would vote against a Constitutional amendment, but most likely vote for it on a state level, depending on how it was worded. You talk about my forcing my beliefs on others, that may be the case on this issue (I believe it is wrong), but on the other hand your trying to force your belief on my (you believe it is right) no matter what the issue, one side or the other is forcing there beliefs on others. In the US it is a majority that rules, by vote. To end all the controversy on this issue, have a national referendum and let the people speak. That is the basic concept of the Constitution.

Often called 'the tyranny of the majority'.

Anyway I respect your views. Its how you feel. You find it disturbing but do you believe that gay people have the right to marry like everyone else. If you've answered this already I'm sorry but I'm just to damn lazy to read the whole thread:p

Ok since you asked.
I believe I just did explain it a bit in a recent post. I believe it is a word issue, what people do behind there closed doors is there business to an extent (unless its is something that is just wrong like sex with children/animals) I am not saying and never said being gay should be illegal, that would be like saying being black or christen is illegal.

What would be wrong with a civil union for gay people??? It would be a legally binding contract, and they would receive all the same “rights” power of attorney and be able to make all the same decisions that a spouse of a married couple would have, everything, just by a different name, again I believe marriage is between a man and woman. They would pay the marriage tax, be able to make all the same deduction and have a family (kids) they would have the right to adopt or have invetro (spelling) or any such thing to have children and a family. There rights would be legally recognized as law, just use a different word. I know this sounds like “equal but separate” but I have know problem with another’s life style (to a point as stated above) but the word marriage to me (once again) is between a man and woman.

Quote from MSN:
“The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. “A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.”

In response, Hatch fumed: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?”



No suggestion need be made; They're Bigots. All 49 of the senators who are willing to soil the Bill of Rights with garbage like this just because they don't think gays should get married are full-fledgd fucking Bigots.

How else could they explain their willingness to trash the most important political document in this nation just to deny the right to enter into a legal contract between consenting adults for 30 million Americans? Hmm?

I would vote against a Constitutional amendment, but most likely vote for it on a state level, depending on how it was worded. You talk about my forcing my beliefs on others, that may be the case on this issue (I believe it is wrong), but on the other hand your trying to force your belief on my (you believe it is right) no matter what the issue, one side or the other is forcing there beliefs on others. In the US it is a majority that rules, by vote. To end all the controversy on this issue, have a national referendum and let the people speak. That is the basic concept of the Constitution.
Those statements prove that you have no concept of how the Constitution works or what it was intended to do.

Ok since you asked.
I believe I just did explain it a bit in a recent post. I believe it is a word issue, what people do behind there closed doors is there business to an extent (unless its is something that is just wrong like sex with children/animals) I am not saying and never said being gay should be illegal, that would be like saying being black or christen is illegal.

What would be wrong with a civil union for gay people??? It would be a legally binding contract, and they would receive all the same “rights” power of attorney and be able to make all the same decisions that a spouse of a married couple would have, everything, just by a different name, again I believe marriage is between a man and woman. They would pay the marriage tax, be able to make all the same deduction and have a family (kids) they would have the right to adopt or have invetro (spelling) or any such thing to have children and a family. There rights would be legally recognized as law, just use a different word. I know this sounds like “equal but separate” but I have know problem with another’s life style (to a point as stated above) but the word marriage to me (once again) is between a man and woman.


Why not marrige? why the hell bother with a different name? specialy concidering there are already civial marriges that have nothing to do with one peticular religion or another

For that matter why do christians have a corner on what marrage is or is not? there are plenty of other religions that have just as much right and history as you that may wish to marry a homosexual couple

Why do chrisitans get prefferential treatment?

The bill is being reintroduced next month....

... like that'll make a difference.

Ok since you asked.
I believe I just did explain it a bit in a recent post. I believe it is a word issue, what people do behind there closed doors is there business to an extent (unless its is something that is just wrong like sex with children/animals) I am not saying and never said being gay should be illegal, that would be like saying being black or christen is illegal.

What would be wrong with a civil union for gay people??? It would be a legally binding contract, and they would receive all the same “rights” power of attorney and be able to make all the same decisions that a spouse of a married couple would have, everything, just by a different name, again I believe marriage is between a man and woman. They would pay the marriage tax, be able to make all the same deduction and have a family (kids) they would have the right to adopt or have invetro (spelling) or any such thing to have children and a family. There rights would be legally recognized as law, just use a different word. I know this sounds like “equal but separate” but I have know problem with another’s life style (to a point as stated above) but the word marriage to me (once again) is between a man and woman.
Then when you get married, get married to a chick. But no matter how hard you spin it, it's still 'seperate but equal,' and thats a road already traveled.

The bill is being reintroduced next month....

... like that'll make a difference.
And probably every month until the November elections, when it will be forgotten again until 2008.

Those statements prove that you have no concept of how the Constitution works or what it was intended to do.

Well, if a gay marriage ban was approved as a Constitutional Amendment, there would be nothing anyone could do about it, short of repeal.

It would be part of the Constitution, and therefore Constitutional. Gay people would be truly screwed.

Why do chrisitans get prefferential treatment?

BECAUSE AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY!!!!!

Insert national anthem with emphasis on God here

America is a SECULAR country.

Well, if a gay marriage ban was approved as a Constitutional Amendment, there would be nothing anyone could do about it, short of repeal.

It would be part of the Constitution, and therefore Constitutional. Gay people would be truly screwed.

Not necessarily. That amendment would be at odds with the first amendment. In such a case, the Supreme COurt would have to decide which amendment takes precedence.

My sarcasm wasn't remotely subtle, yet you missed it anyway.

BECAUSE AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY!!!!!

Insert national anthem with emphasis on God here
Like hell it is. ;)

America is a MUDDY country!

:)

My sarcasm wasn't remotely subtle, yet you missed it anyway.
I got it :) the national anthem part gave it away

No one is forcing their beliefs onto anyone. A change to the definition of marriage is only that, a change to the definition and nothing else. The government is not forcing anyone to delibrately accept homosexuality if people don't. Thats their right to believe what they want. Are they asking you to go out any marry a member of the same sex? No, of course not, same-sex marriage is simply extending rights for members in society. You can keep your personal beliefs as much as you like.


Really; I disagree, in many schools the gay agenda (I use the term loosely, for lack of a better word) is being taught to kids, as being normal, in some schools kids are being taught that “they should experiment with it before they dismiss it”. Almost not a day goes by with out some sort of gay story or issue being plastered on the TV. Just stop and let people/kids decide for themselves.
When my child comes home with a book about two gay parents I have to draw a line that is not an education issue that is a family issue. I know that many conservatives would never talk about such a thing at home (and that would be there choice) I may be a different kind of conservative, because I talk to my children about such issues, and they decide what is right for themselves. I have three girls, and all three have differing views on this and many other subjects.

America is a country?

Always thought it was a continent.

Really; I disagree, in many schools the gay agenda (I use the term loosely, for lack of a better word) is being taught to kids, as being normal, in some schools kids are being taught that “they should experiment with it before they dismiss it”. Almost not a day goes by with out some sort of gay story or issue being plastered on the TV. Just stop and let people/kids decide for themselves.
When my child comes home with a book about two gay parents I have to draw a line that is not an education issue that is a family issue. I know that many conservatives would never talk about such a thing at home (and that would be there choice) I may be a different kind of conservative, because I talk to my children about such issues, and they decide what is right for themselves. I have three girls, and all three have differing views on this and many other subjects.

Ok, stop pushing the straight agenda then. No more romantic pairings at all. EVER.

The bill is being reintroduced next month....

... like that'll make a difference.
Because it's not about passing it, it's about getting numbers of times someone voted against it or how many times someone nobly charged the hills for 'your values'...

They know each time it will fail, but when they run against the people who knocked it down they get to say "X number of times Sen. Gaylove St. Hateschristians voted against American families." and people will go, "Damn, Sen. St. Hateschristians is a total dick, we should vote against him."

Because anything that has to be explained will lose to anything that sounds snappy.

Why not marrige? why the hell bother with a different name? specialy concidering there are already civial marriges that have nothing to do with one peticular religion or another

For that matter why do christians have a corner on what marrage is or is not? there are plenty of other religions that have just as much right and history as you that may wish to marry a homosexual couple

Why do chrisitans get prefferential treatment?

Just my thoughts and opinion.

I am not a Christian, or really have any religious affiliations at all; to me religion has nothing to do with it. It is just my opinion nothing more. We all have differing opinions on the subject. I know several (wrong minded) people that believe all blacks, gays, Jews Muslims and just about anyone that is not a white Christian should be locked away. That is there opinion (and it is sad that there are still such people around today) and that opinion will never be changes in them, they think they are right, even though most people have evolved past that point and know that such view are wrong. I have never stated my opinion is the right one, but it is what I believe.

How do Christian get preferential treatment????

Really; I disagree, in many schools the gay agenda (I use the term loosely, for lack of a better word) is being taught to kids, as being normal, in some schools kids are being taught that “they should experiment with it before they dismiss it”. Almost not a day goes by with out some sort of gay story or issue being plastered on the TV. Just stop and let people/kids decide for themselves.
When my child comes home with a book about two gay parents I have to draw a line that is not an education issue that is a family issue. I know that many conservatives would never talk about such a thing at home (and that would be there choice) I may be a different kind of conservative, because I talk to my children about such issues, and they decide what is right for themselves. I have three girls, and all three have differing views on this and many other subjects.

Oh please. Its about learning how to respect people who are different in society, they're not forcing things onto your child. No matter how much you might not like someone for a particular reason, you still have to learn how to respect them as a human being. Why disprect a homosexual person if you don't even know them in the first place? Judge their character, not their sexual preference. There is no agenda my friend, the "gay agenda" is just something that conservatives came up with for their ignorance towards gays.

Ok, stop pushing the straight agenda then. No more romantic pairings at all. EVER.

Ok agreed. Schools (sex education) should only teach the mechanics of sex, the dangers and how to protect ones self, not go into straight/gay issues, or what is better or “more” natural. Just give the facts on birth control, what is happening to there bodies as they grow up. Stop teaching gay sex, straight sex, oral sex and so on. Do not advocate a position, just what sex is about and so on…

Well, if a gay marriage ban was approved as a Constitutional Amendment, there would be nothing anyone could do about it, short of repeal.

It would be part of the Constitution, and therefore Constitutional. Gay people would be truly screwed.
Exactly, which is precisely why the Framers made it so difficult to change the Constitution. That's why it takes 2/3 of each House of Congress and 3/4 of the states to make it happen, as opposed to a simple majority vote, as the poster I was responding to suggested.

Gay Agenda:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

Exactly, which is precisely why the Framers made it so difficult to change the Constitution. That's why it takes 2/3 of each House of Congress and 3/4 of the states to make it happen, as opposed to a simple majority vote, as the poster I was responding to suggested.
Difficult, but not impossible.

If the views of the several states who passed their own gay marriage ban amendments is any indication, it could happen.

Not necessarily. That amendment would be at odds with the first amendment. In such a case, the Supreme COurt would have to decide which amendment takes precedence.
No, DK is right about this--the newest amendment would take precedence in that situation.

No, DK is right about this--the newest amendment would take precedence in that situation.
Largely because it would be considered to be adding specificity in the case of marriage.

Ok agreed. Schools (sex education) should only teach the mechanics of sex, the dangers and how to protect ones self, not go into straight/gay issues, or what is better or “more” natural. Just give the facts on birth control, what is happening to there bodies as they grow up. Stop teaching gay sex, straight sex, oral sex and so on. Do not advocate a position, just what sex is about and so on…


That's not all. No more male female pairings in any books, novels or short stories. We'll play hell with English class and Literature. No more book reports that mention couples, no more plays, no essays. Nothing. No more school dances, no prom. Nada.

Difficult, but not impossible.

If the views of the several states who passed their own gay marriage ban amendments is any indication, it could happen.
If it got that far--has to get out of Congress first, and the Republicans couldn't even pull 50 votes in the Senate today to end cloture, much less the 67 they'd need for the actual amendment.

Here's your horror scenario:

1. The pandering works - Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, trumpeting this issue.
2. People become afraid to vote against it - and if they win, they will bring it up again.
3. If it passes the Senate and House, it will make it through the state legislatures. Most states will probably pass it by wide margins. Count on blue states to be the ones that don't approve it.
4. It would be a done deal.

That's not all. No more male female pairings in any books, novels or short stories. We'll play hell with English class and Literature. No more book reports that mention couples, no more plays, no essays. Nothing. No more school dances, no prom. Nada.
We should also make high school girls tape down their breasts and flatten boy bulges. All students should be forced to wear Richard Nixon masks.

Here's your horror scenario:

1. The pandering works - Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, trumpeting this issue.
2. People become afraid to vote against it - and if they win, they will bring it up again.
3. If it passes the Senate and House, it will make it through the state legislatures. Most states will probably pass it by wide margins. Count on blue states to be the ones that don't approve it.
4. It would be a done deal.
5. Move to Canada or Britian.

Oh please. Its about learning how to respect people who are different in society, they're not forcing things onto your child. No matter how much you might not like someone for a particular reason, you still have to learn how to respect them as a human being. Why disprect a homosexual person if you don't even know them in the first place? Judge their character, not their sexual preference. There is no agenda my friend, the "gay agenda" is just something that conservatives came up with for their ignorance towards gays.


No it is not, it is about making people believe such things are normal. You can respect the person, but you do not have to respect there choice of life style. I respect people for why they are not there race, sexual preference, religion, national origins or any such crap, but does that mean I have to respect there way of life there personal beliefs or choices????

There is a gay agenda, just as there is a Catholic agenda, republican agenda, democratic agenda, African American agenda, Hispanic agenda and a immigrant agenda, all groups have there agenda. I know and am friends with gays as well as members of almost all the said groups, and respect them as people, but I do not agree with or respect everything they believe.

All I can say is thank god that issue didn't pass.

oooh the irony...

I know, I know--shocking news that a piece of shit legislation that everyone knew was going to fail, did so (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13181735/), and along party lines. The only Democrat to vote for the measure was Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and when you're talking about a measure that would have taken 60 votes to end debate on and 67 to pass, getting one person from the opposing party ain't gonna get you far.

The only reason I'm posting this is to answer a question Orrin Hatch posed at the end of the article. He was responding to a statement by Ted Kennedy.


To which I reply, if Kennedy isn't saying it, I am. Yes--over half the US Senate is a crew of bigots.
Thank God I live in Nebraska, where people actually represent what we stand for. God, how many politicians do that?

Thank God I live in Nebraska, where people actually represent what we stand for. God, how many politicians do that?
Just the the ones that ignore the constitution

The bill is being reintroduced next month....

... like that'll make a difference.

Are they serious? Bills should only be able to fail so many times.

No, DK is right about this--the newest amendment would take precedence in that situation.

*bleah* :(

Yeah, I just looked that up myself. That's why it takes an amendment to repeal an amendment. :(

No it is not, it is about making people believe such things are normal. You can respect the person, but you do not have to respect there choice of life style. I respect people for why they are not there race, sexual preference, religion, national origins or any such crap, but does that mean I have to respect there way of life there personal beliefs or choices????

There is a gay agenda, just as there is a Catholic agenda, republican agenda, democratic agenda, African American agenda, Hispanic agenda and a immigrant agenda, all groups have there agenda. I know and am friends with gays as well as members of almost all the said groups, and respect them as people, but I do not agree with or respect everything they believe.
Your defintion of "normal" is based on opinion.

Oh please. Its about learning how to respect people who are different in society, they're not forcing things onto your child. No matter how much you might not like someone for a particular reason, you still have to learn how to respect them as a human being. Why disprect a homosexual person if you don't even know them in the first place? Judge their character, not their sexual preference. There is no agenda my friend, the "gay agenda" is just something that conservatives came up with for their ignorance towards gays.
Yeah, I'm a dumbass alright, even though I'm getting offers for prep courses at Oxford University and I'm 14!

Also, I consider their sexual preference to be a part of their character.

*bleah* :(

Yeah, I just looked that up myself. That's why it takes an amendment to repeal an amendment. :(
I know, I know. It hurts to think that DK was right about something.

I know and am friends with gays as well as members of almost all the said groups, and respect them as people, but I do not agree with or respect everything they believe.

And how would changing the definition of marriage change what you believe?

Yeah, I'm a dumbass alright, even though I'm getting offers for prep courses at Oxford University and I'm 14!

snip
That addresses the topic how?

No it is not, it is about making people believe such things are normal. You can respect the person, but you do not have to respect there choice of life style. I respect people for why they are not there race, sexual preference, religion, national origins or any such crap, but does that mean I have to respect there way of life there personal beliefs or choices????

There is a gay agenda, just as there is a Catholic agenda, republican agenda, democratic agenda, African American agenda, Hispanic agenda and a immigrant agenda, all groups have there agenda. I know and am friends with gays as well as members of almost all the said groups, and respect them as people, but I do not agree with or respect everything they believe.

'lifestyle'?

I can't believe how obsessed some people get about sex.

:P

That addresses the topic how?
The dude called me ignorant towards gays, and I wouldn't be surprised if he called me completely ignorant. I'm defending my intellect.

Thank God I live in Nebraska, where people actually represent what we stand for. God, how many politicians do that?

You mean the 'Liberty and Justice for ALL' part, or the 'God Hates Fags' part?

That's not all. No more male female pairings in any books, novels or short stories. We'll play hell with English class and Literature. No more book reports that mention couples, no more plays, no essays. Nothing. No more school dances, no prom. Nada.

You’re not seeing my point. I am not for censorship of such things. Let producers make the shows they want to, showing what ever kind of couples (inter racial, gay straight what ever) they want to; people can watch what they want. The point is do not teach and particular agenda, straight or gay, just lay out facts and teach them, let people make up there own minds. If two girls or guys for that matter want to go to prom fine they have made that choice, your suggestion is kind of draconian and would limit imagination and free will. I am saying that NO personal or political agenda be taught. Let them decide the issues with there own moral values and beliefs, not something that is pushed on them by someone with a agenda.

I remember when I had sex ed in school ( about 100 years ago) what was taught was the basics how a baby was made (not how the act was done) how a woman became pregnant, by the act of intercourse, and that sperm fertilized the female egg, what STDs were, what birth control was and what was available. There was no mention of oral sex, anal sex, straight or gay sex, just the results of sex and the dangers (STDs and so on).

And how would changing the definition of marriage change what you believe?
Simple, its calling the marriage of two men or two women equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman.

There is no fucking gay agenda. Gays dont want to turn anyone gay. Gays dont want to take over the world. Gays do not want to bring society into chaos. They just want their love recognized, and want to stop being the target of hate and discrimination. If you want to call that an agenda, fine, but is that so much to fucking ask?

Simple, its calling the marriage of two men or two women equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman.

Do you want to have a traditional marriage? Yes? Then what the fuck do you care if 2 guys get married? Are you getting married to a guy? No? Shut up then.

The dude called me ignorant towards gays, and I wouldn't be surprised if he called me completely ignorant. I'm defending my intellect.
You can be a very bright person in many areas while still being blindly ignorant in others.

The dude called me ignorant towards gays, and I wouldn't be surprised if he called me completely ignorant. I'm defending my intellect.

How can you define intellect anyhow?

You’re not seeing my point. I am not for censorship of such things. Let producers make the shows they want to, showing what ever kind of couples (inter racial, gay straight what ever) they want to; people can watch what they want. The point is do not teach and particular agenda, straight or gay, just lay out facts and teach them, let people make up there own minds. If two girls or guys for that matter want to go to prom fine they have made that choice, your suggestion is kind of draconian and would limit imagination and free will. I am saying that NO personal or political agenda be taught. Let them decide the issues with there own moral values and beliefs, not something that is pushed on them by someone with a agenda.

I remember when I had sex ed in school ( about 100 years ago) what was taught was the basics how a baby was made (not how the act was done) how a woman became pregnant, by the act of intercourse, and that sperm fertilized the female egg, what STDs were, what birth control was and what was available. There was no mention of oral sex, anal sex, straight or gay sex, just the results of sex and the dangers (STDs and so on).

Did you learn the value of abstinence? If not, that course was biased.

Simple, its calling the marriage of two men or two women equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman.
That’s not what he asked … how is making something legally equal affect your PERSONAL belief?

I know, I know. It hurts to think that DK was right about something.

More than you know. ;)

j/k. I actually side with you in gun control, death penalty and certain other arguments. I'm not party-blind.

You mean the 'Liberty and Justice for ALL' part, or the 'God Hates Fags' part?
the most retarded Reverend Phelps(I believe that's his name) Lived in Kansas.

Nebraska is a very conservative state, home of the Strategic Air Command, the College World Series(Which is coming up soon, I suggest you get tickets), and the very good college football team the Nebraska Cornhuskers. We're not hicks, we just have standards. I'm not opposed to civil unions, I'm opposed to gay marriage.

Meh, I'm glad the bill failed and all, but honestly this situation is becoming annoying.

Gay Agenda? Homosexual Lifestyle? Since when does the fact that I like guys make me different than everyone else? So I like guys. Does that mean that I can no longer do my job the way it was meant to be done? Does this mean that I can no longer be a productive member of society? Does this mean that I've changed in any manner that's unusual other than the fact that I like guys?

[Enter Expletive Here] NO!!

I hate when people think just because I'm a certain race or orientation or religion that I must have SOMETHING I want. I must want special previlidges and/or rights. No, I just want my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And my pursuit of happiness means liking guys and that DOESN'T infringe on the rights of other people.

That’s not what he asked … how is making something legally equal affect your PERSONAL belief?
It means that my own country is recognizing something I am against, and I am very patriotic. It makes me think my country's betrayed me or something.

the most retarded Reverend Phelps(I believe that's his name) Lived in Kansas.

Nebraska is a very conservative state, home of the Strategic Air Command, the College World Series(Which is coming up soon, I suggest you get tickets), and the very good college football team the Nebraska Cornhuskers. We're not hicks, we just have standards. I'm not opposed to civil unions, I'm opposed to gay marriage.

Do you also believe that 'colored folk' should have to use separate bathrooms?

Meh, I'm glad the bill failed and all, but honestly this situation is becoming annoying.

Gay Agenda? Homosexual Lifestyle? Since when does the fact that I like guys make me different than everyone else? So I like guys. Does that mean that I can no longer do my job the way it was meant to be done? Does this mean that I can no longer be a productive member of society? Does this mean that I've changed in any manner that's unusual other than the fact that I like guys?

[Enter Expletive Here] NO!!

I hate when people think just because I'm a certain race or orientation or religion that I must have SOMETHING I want. I must want special previlidges and/or rights. No, I just want my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And my pursuit of happiness means liking guys and that DOESN'T infringe on the rights of other people.

I'm honestly wondering, how can someone be born gay? How can you have a certain sexual preference from birth. When I was born, or at least since I can remember, I didn't automatically think, "I like girls, not guys."(P.S. I'm a guy)

Do you also believe that 'colored folk' should have to use separate bathrooms?
No, that's retarded. They are proven to have no choice, and even then, its only skin color, which I have no bias towards.

It means that my own country is recognizing something I am against, and I am very patriotic. It makes me think my country's betrayed me or something.
Then maybe you need to grow up some … letting others live their life is not a personal betrayal … it is a sign of strength.

If you cant let others live their lives how they choose your life will be deservingly miserable, because there are always going to be people doing things you don’t like.

I'm honestly wondering, how can someone be born gay? How can you have a certain sexual preference from birth. When I was born, or at least since I can remember, I didn't automatically think, "I like girls, not guys."(P.S. I'm a guy)

Yeah, but assuming you like girls, did you choose to like them? ... No, I didn't think so.

I'm honestly wondering, how can someone be born gay? How can you have a certain sexual preference from birth. When I was born, or at least since I can remember, I didn't automatically think, "I like girls, not guys."(P.S. I'm a guy)
Because it's not a conscious thought. I didn't think 'I like guys, not girls' in any part of my life. I just do. I wasn't taught to be gay. I just am. I've always been.

No, that's retarded. They are proven to have no choice, and even then, its only skin color, which I have no bias towards.
Yet you do have bias towards sexuality… were you molested or something as a child? What causes all this bias?

It means that my own country is recognizing something I am against, and I am very patriotic. It makes me think my country's betrayed me or something.
Well, my country recognizes your right to have an impact on our political process and to try to gather political and social legitimacy for your views, even though I am against your views, and I am very patriotic. But somehow, I don't feel betrayed or anything. Guess we have two very different ideas of what the United States of America is supposed to be about.

I think it's all about social and legal equality for all.

You seem to think it's all about you.

Your defintion of "normal" is based on opinion.

Based on my personal beliefs, I do not believe being gay is normal, that is what I believe, you can believe what you wish, I do not hold many beliefs against someone, unless it is a belief that advocates killing someone different, because of race, sex, sexual origin, religion. Having a different belief is not wrong. It is just that a different set of moral values and opinions or beliefs.
You just don’t seam to get it, that you can still be friends with or respect someone that holds another set of values or beliefs then you do.

Try this once again……..
I don’t care who you date, who you have sex with, how many people you have sex with, if you’re a republican or democrat, black white gay or straight for the most part what your beliefs are (as long as you can talk about them in a civil manner) with out name calling and getting defensive. I believe marriage is between a man and woman…..

I would never support something that would take rights away from anyone, or segregate anyone, and get this; I would ever go so far as to completely do away with the word marriage, make them all civil unions or a contract between two people, and yes I know it does sound contradictory, but again my personal values and beliefs are that, marriage is for a man and woman….I am not anti-gay, I don’t make a big deal about being married to a woman, who cares.

No, that's retarded. They are proven to have no choice, and even then, its only skin color, which I have no bias towards.
Would it matter if they had a choice?

Well, my country recognizes your right to have an impact on our political process and to try to gather political and social legitimacy for your views, even though I am against your views, and I am very patriotic. But somehow, I don't feel betrayed or anything. Guess we have two very different ideas of what the United States of America is supposed to be about.

I think it's all about social and legal equality for all.

You seem to think it's all about you.
Exactly. I've supported several things that I'm personally against because I believe it's best for society, though not best for me. I've opposed things that were benificial for me because I didn't think it was fair for me to receive things that others could not.

No, that's retarded. They are proven to have no choice, and even then, its only skin color, which I have no bias towards.

By that same argument, homosexuality is only sex. I am always amazed at how obsessed Americans are with sex that they feel the need to label and categorize people and make political agendas based on who people like to boink.

And gay marriage is only marriage. Does the gender of the participants really merit our attention at all?

Based on my personal beliefs, I do not believe being gay is normal, that is what I believe, you can believe what you wish, I do not hold many beliefs against someone, unless it is a belief that advocates killing someone different, because of race, sex, sexual origin, religion. Having a different belief is not wrong. It is just that a different set of moral values and opinions or beliefs.
You just don’t seam to get it, that you can still be friends with or respect someone that holds another set of values or beliefs then you do.

Try this once again……..
I don’t care who you date, who you have sex with, how many people you have sex with, if you’re a republican or democrat, black white gay or straight for the most part what your beliefs are (as long as you can talk about them in a civil manner) with out name calling and getting defensive. I believe marriage is between a man and woman…..

I would never support something that would take rights away from anyone, or segregate anyone, and get this; I would ever go so far as to completely do away with the word marriage, make them all civil unions or a contract between two people, and yes I know it does sound contradictory, but again my personal values and beliefs are that, marriage is for a man and woman….I am not anti-gay, I don’t make a big deal about being married to a woman, who cares.
I agree that that sounds contradictory.

I'm not in favor of same-sex marriage, but it's not the federal government's place to decide the issue. In my opinion, this a states rights issue. I'm glad it didn't pass. The individual states should be left to make laws concerning marriage.

Yet you do have bias towards sexuality… were you molested or something as a child? What causes all this bias?
Nothing happened to me, I just have grown up with conservative values, and I truly became conservative after 9/11. It made me realize, "I want to help this country, I want to preserve it for my children, and their children, and so on,"

By the way, I know many of you would never vote for me, but I'm running for President in 2036. Its my life goal, because I'm tired of politicians who lie to us. I want to start a thing where average, everyday Joes(With a background check, of course) can come and talk to me, personally.

Also, people, I am not opposed to civil unions, just gay marriage.

The word marriage is troubling. I propose a ban on the word.

You can call a dog a duck all you like, it still ain't gonna quack.

What you name it means jack shit.

Did you learn the value of abstinence? If not, that course was biased.


Abstinence was taught as a form of birth control, as well as a moral value. But again there was a realist point of view taught as well (because kids will experiment with sex) thus birth control was taught, as well as knowledge of STDs and the symptoms of STDs and what to do if you had said symptoms, but condoms and such were not given out at school.

By that same argument, homosexuality is only sex. I am always amazed at how obsessed Americans are with sex that they feel the need to label and categorize people and make political agendas based on who people like to boink.

And gay marriage is only marriage. Does the gender of the participants really merit our attention at all?
I think yes, because marriage has stayed the same for thousands of years and now we're going to just mutilate it to make everyone "feel good" Give them their civil unions, but not marriage.

Oh, and desperate measures, no it would not matter if they had the choice. Skin color is not a part of person's character, sexual preference is.

I'm honestly wondering, how can someone be born gay? How can you have a certain sexual preference from birth. When I was born, or at least since I can remember, I didn't automatically think, "I like girls, not guys."(P.S. I'm a guy)
Recent studies suggest that preferences are "hardwired" into us during gestation, even though they typically do not emerge as fully formed behaviors until puberty, along with the rest of our physical sexual characteristics and the full function of the sex organs. Homosexuals are born that way, just like heterosexuals. However, the hardwired preferences can be further affected, psychologically, by life experience. This usually happens in the form of repression and sublimation. I think that's how you get closeted gays -- and violent homophobes, too, possibly.

The word marriage is troubling. I propose a ban on the word.
Are you being sarcastic? If not:

Oh, poor thing.

I respect your opinion on gay marriage, but I don't want a ban on the word marriage. That's a bunch of touch-feely crapola.

I think yes, because marriage has stayed the same for thousands of years and now we're going to just mutilate it to make everyone "feel good" Give them their civil unions, but not marriage.

Oh, and desperate measures, no it would not matter if they had the choice. Skin color is not a part of person's character, sexual preference is.
Well seeing as there are racial stereotypes, gender stereotypes, and whatnot, I believe that a lot of people would disagree with you.

I don't believe you've ever been told that you 'act black' or 'act white' or whatnot.

In some countries they dont have marriage rather just civil unions between man/woman, or man/man, or woman/woman. Marriage is exactly the same thing as civil unions. It doesnt matter what you call it, but to give two different words for unions just because they're straight or homosexual is unequal and places couples in a hierarchy.

Recent studies suggest that preferences are "hardwired" into us during gestation, even though they typically do not emerge as fully formed behaviors until puberty, along with the rest of our physical sexual characteristics and the full function of the sex organs. Homosexuals are born that way, just like heterosexuals. However, the hardwired preferences can be further affected, psychologically, by life experience. This usually happens in the form of repression and sublimation. I think that's how you get closeted gays -- and violent homophobes, too, possibly.
Source?

Also, it says suggest, not have proved.

I know, I know--shocking news that a piece of shit legislation that everyone knew was going to fail, did so (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13181735/), and along party lines. The only Democrat to vote for the measure was Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and when you're talking about a measure that would have taken 60 votes to end debate on and 67 to pass, getting one person from the opposing party ain't gonna get you far..

Hurrah! Thanks for the good news before I head off to work.

The only reason I'm posting this is to answer a question Orrin Hatch posed at the end of the article. He was responding to a statement by Ted Kennedy.


To which I reply, if Kennedy isn't saying it, I am. Yes--over half the US Senate is a crew of bigots.

Well, that part isn't good news. And sadly, it seems it is true. Thankfully, within 6 years we'll have another opportunity to remove the bigots. Until then, I suppose we'll just have to make do.

In some countries they dont have marriage rather just civil unions between man/woman, or man/man, or woman/woman. Marriage is exactly the same thing as civil unions. It doesnt matter what you call it, but to give two different words for unions just because they're straight or homosexual is unequal and places couples in a hierarchy.
Civil unions are different from marriage, look it up.

Source?

Also, it says suggest, not have proved.

Why does it have to be proved for you? What is that gunna do? The fact of the matter is, there are homosexual people that exist not by choice, its simple.

Ladies and gentlemen, I must tell you it has become very tiring and lonesome arguing against all of you. I think I'll go do something else. But I stand by what I have said, gay marriage = no.

I think yes, because marriage has stayed the same for thousands of years and now we're going to just mutilate it to make everyone "feel good" Give them their civil unions, but not marriage.

Oh, and desperate measures, no it would not matter if they had the choice. Skin color is not a part of person's character, sexual preference is.
What type of character does a homosexual have?

Why does it have to be proved for you? What is that gunna do? The fact of the matter is, there are homosexual people that exist not by choice, its simple.
It only suggests, not proves, I want proven evidence that its natural.

What type of character does a homosexual have?
They like the same sex, that's a part of their character.

I agree that that sounds contradictory.


LOL. It does and I can admit to that, but we all have our own values and opinions, how we develop them and who we express them is a mystery, and many of us have contradictory opinions, just as we all have unreasonable fears, demands and so because we are all after all still just only human.

I am sorry but I can not explain why a word makes such a difference to me, but it just does. Irrational but still it does. Just like I have only one fear in my life and that is snakes, no idea why buy they scare me to death, and they are the only thing that has ever sacred me in my life, being in a war zone with people shooting at me,, being on a ship at sea that had a major fire in the engine room half and having to fight that fire did not scare half as much as seeing a snake.

Civil unions are different from marriage, look it up.

Civil unions have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under certain law as spouses in a marriage.

No difference, just the wording. It has the same impact on people who are union'ed regardless if straight/homosexual.

It only suggests, not proves, I want proven evidence that its natural.

Are your straight feelings for women natural?

Theres your answer.

LOL. It does and I can admit to that, but we all have our own values and opinions, how we develop them and who we express them is a mystery, and many of us have contradictory opinions, just as we all have unreasonable fears, demands and so because we are all after all still just only human.

I am sorry but I can not explain why a word makes such a difference to me, but it just does. Irrational but still it does. Just like I have only one fear in my life and that is snakes, no idea why buy they scare me to death, and they are the only thing that has ever sacred me in my life, being in a war zone with people shooting at me,, being on a ship at sea that had a major fire in the engine room half and having to fight that fire did not scare half as much as seeing a snake.
But why would you hold others to behave according to a contradictory belief?

HP, are you determined to believe that homosexuality is a choice? If so, why would ANYONE wish to be discriminated against? Why would anyone wish to be a part of a group of people who are attacked for no real reason? Why would anyone wish to be assaulted physically or mentally just because he differs from the majority?

Finally, there are a lot more availible women than gay men. Why would anyone who's attracted to the former move into a more competitive market with less security of a decent return?

And yes, I was being sarcastic, if only partially.

EDIT: To gay women, I apologize. My example was one-sided.

They like the same sex, that's a part of their character.

It's just sex. :p

HP, are you determined to believe that homosexuality is a choice? If so, why would ANYONE wish to be discriminated against? Why would anyone wish to be a part of a group of people who are attacked for no real reason? Why would anyone wish to be assaulted physically or mentally just because he differs from the majority?

Finally, there are a lot more availible women than gay men. Why would anyone who's attracted to the former move into a more competitive market with less security of a decent return?

And yes, I was being sarcastic, if only partially.
There's a difference between physical assault and banning gay marriage.
That's my final post, I'm done now.

They like the same sex, that's a part of their character.
In what ways does that contrast with someone who likes the opposite sex?

I'll be the interrogator for the evening.

There's a difference between physical assault and banning gay marriage.
That's my final post, I'm done now.
It's still an attack on the person's being for something that they had no control over. And you didn't answer my questions.

There's a difference between physical assault and banning gay marriage.
That's my final post, I'm done now.

Yes, you do that. Leave.

Source?

Also, it says suggest, not have proved.


So you chose to ignore your attraction to other men and decided to only go for girls even though you lust for man parts as well? Thats the only way I can see how you would believe that it was a choice.

But why would you hold others to behave according to a contradictory belief?

I hold no one to my personal beliefs; I do not force my values on other, I do not judge my black/Hispanic/female/gay friends based on there choices or life style, we do debate such things a racism, gay marriage and so on, but I call them friends not based on sexual preference, race or anything, I base that on who they are not the “label” they carry.
And they do the same with me……

I hold no one to my personal beliefs; I do not force my values on other, I do not judge my black/Hispanic/female/gay friends based on there choices or life style, we do debate such things a racism, gay marriage and so on, but I call them friends not based on sexual preference, race or anything, I base that on who they are not the “label” they carry.
And they do the same with me……
But you don't want them to use the word "marry" based on your personal beliefs.

I hold no one to my personal beliefs; I do not force my values on other, I do not judge my black/Hispanic/female/gay friends based on there choices or life style, we do debate such things a racism, gay marriage and so on, but I call them friends not based on sexual preference, race or anything, I base that on who they are not the “label” they carry.
And they do the same with me……

But you want to vote, on a state level, to not let gay people marry? That's holding them to your standard. They can have a civil union, but not a marriage.

Can't you think that gay marriage is wrong without it being illegal? Can't you think "I disagree with it. I'll never marry another member of my own sex. I don't like that other people do, but I realize it's their right"?

It only suggests, not proves, I want proven evidence that its natural.


The fact that it is widely seen in the animal world should be enough to show that homosexual behavior is natural right?

Source?

Also, it says suggest, not have proved.
I know it says suggest. That's because the studies are new and not complete. I'm too lazy to look them up today. Apparently just as you are too lazy to keep up with current events, because this has been part of the public discourse for more than a decade. Whether or not you agree with the studies being done, their existence is common knowledge.

The fact that science is in the midst of addressing this question and that data is pending is proof that you can't just make blanket assumptions about it and use that as a basis for public policy.

But what does it matter? You've been somewhat dodging this question: What does it matter if it's a choice or not? I make a choice to be socially liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro a whole bunch of things that are in opposition to conservative agendas. Don't I have equal rights with conservatives, though, to do and say as I like? Just because some people don't like what I choose to say, they don't have the right to stop me from saying it, do they? Of course not. I am protected by the Constitution.

Likewise, don't I, as a heterosexual, have the legal right to choose whom to marry and how to get married? Don't I have the right to choose where in the country to live and work, and don't I have the right to expect that the legally binding contracts I voluntarily make will be valid no matter where in the country I am, because of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution?

I fail to see why I should be able to have those protections for my choices, while the EXACT SAME CHOICES made by homosexuals are not protected.

But you don't want them to use the word "marry" based on your personal beliefs.

Sorry but yes, and based on your personal beliefs you believe it is to use the word married, it is the same thing, you have your point of view and I have mine.

It's still an attack on the person's being for something that they had no control over. And you didn't answer my questions.
I'll answer your questions: Yes, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.

Also, isn't allowing gay marriage against the wishes of the majority of Americans holding them to your standards?

Sorry but yes, and based on your personal beliefs you believe it is to use the word married, it is the same thing, you have your point of view and I have mine.
But only mine is tolerant of both sides of the issue.

I didn't automatically think, "I like girls, not guys."(P.S. I'm a guy)

Yeah, you didnt think it at all. Just like gay people dont think about liking guys, they just do. Now how can you say its a choice if you didnt think that?

Sorry but yes, and based on your personal beliefs you believe it is to use the word married, it is the same thing, you have your point of view and I have mine.
But our point of view is not limiting the freedoms of others (if carried through that is … simply having an opinion does not in itself restrict freedoms but basing actions on it does)

I know it says suggest. That's because the studies are new and not complete. I'm too lazy to look them up today. Apparently just as you are too lazy to keep up with current events, because this has been part of the public discourse for more than a decade. Whether or not you agree with the studies being done, their existence is common knowledge.

The fact that science is in the midst of addressing this question and that data is pending is proof that you can't just make blanket assumptions about it and use that as a basis for public policy.

But what does it matter? You've been somewhat dodging this question: What does it matter if it's a choice or not? I make a choice to be socially liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro a whole bunch of things that are in opposition to conservative agendas. Don't I have equal rights with conservatives, though, to do and say as I like? Just because some people don't like what I choose to say, they don't have the right to stop me from saying it, do they? Of course not. I am protected by the Constitution.

Likewise, don't I, as a heterosexual, have the legal right to choose whom to marry and how to get married? Don't I have the right to choose where in the country to live and work, and don't I have the right to expect that the legally binding contracts I voluntarily make will be valid no matter where in the country I am, because of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution?

I fail to see why I should be able to have those protections for my choices, while the EXACT SAME CHOICES made by homosexuals are not protected.
You have the right to an opinion, I just think you're wrong.

I'll answer your questions: Yes, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.

Also, isn't allowing gay marriage against the wishes of the majority of Americans holding them to your standards?

The majority of americans would rather not pay taxes but they do.

Sorry but yes, and based on your personal beliefs you believe it is to use the word married, it is the same thing, you have your point of view and I have mine.


but his point of views promotes individual rights that affect noone but the homosexual individual (in a positive way) and your point of view restricts rights that affect hundreds of thousands negatively.

I'll answer your questions: Yes, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.

Also, isn't allowing gay marriage against the wishes of the majority of Americans holding them to your standards?
No because it requires them to make no changes in their own personal relationships

Yeah, you didnt think it at all. Just like gay people dont think about liking guys, they just do. Now how can you say its a choice if you didnt think that?
I chose that when I could, when I was about 8-ish. Until then, I didn't care for neither girls nor guys. Now, I like girls.

I chose that when I could, when I was about 8-ish. Until then, I didn't care for neither girls nor guys. Now, I like girls.
Bullshit ... you discovered you liked girls ... you did not "Choose"

But you want to vote, on a state level, to not let gay people marry? That's holding them to your standard. They can have a civil union, but not a marriage.

And people on there side want it taught in school and it is ok and acceptable, that is holding me and others to there standard. Just leave it alone, do not push either sides agenda and let kids and others make up there own minds and form there own opinions and beliefs.

Can't you think that gay marriage is wrong without it being illegal? Can't you think "I disagree with it. I'll never marry another member of my own sex. I don't like that other people do, but I realize it's their right"?

Yes I can believe that, but again it goes against my value set, that is how I feel about it and you feel a different way.

No because it requires them to make no changes in their own personal relationships
They don't want it, is that so hard to comprehed? They don't want to see gays getting married at the same place that they want their kids to get married at someday with a member of the opposite sex, they think homosexuality is wrong, I think homosexuality is wrong, because we think its abnormal, and damnit, we're not a bunch of hicks for thinking that.

Exactly. I've supported several things that I'm personally against because I believe it's best for society, though not best for me. I've opposed things that were benificial for me because I didn't think it was fair for me to receive things that others could not.
This is the key to making democracy work. This is key to stopping it from devolving into tyranny of the majority.

I'll answer your questions: Yes, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.

Also, isn't allowing gay marriage against the wishes of the majority of Americans holding them to your standards?

That doesn't change the fact that they're still able to live out their life without their beliefs changed.

You can argue the same thing with Blacks, women, disabled peoples, and other minorities who were against "the wishes of the majority".

They don't want it, is that so hard to comprehed? They don't want to see gays getting married at the same place that they want their kids to get married at someday with a member of the opposite sex, they think homosexuality is wrong, I think homosexuality is wrong, because we think its abnormal, and damnit, we're not a bunch of hicks for thinking that.
That sounds like a church problem, not a government one.

I chose that when I could, when I was about 8-ish. Until then, I didn't care for neither girls nor guys. Now, I like girls.

So you said "hmm...I think I will choose to like girls?"

When you look at boobs, do you say "I should be turned on?" and you magically get a boner? Its automatic, you dont choose shit.

Do you like chicken? Did you choose to like it? Can you choose to revile it instead? And I dont mean pretend to think its disgusting, I mean when you eat it you think it tastes like shit.

They don't want it, is that so hard to comprehed? They don't want to see gays getting married at the same place that they want their kids to get married at someday with a member of the opposite sex, they think homosexuality is wrong, I think homosexuality is wrong, because we think its abnormal, and damnit, we're not a bunch of hicks for thinking that.
I did not say you were (though the demographics imply such sometimes)

Yeah, you didnt think it at all. Just like gay people dont think about liking guys, they just do. Now how can you say its a choice if you didnt think that?

Whereas I, when I was younger, just liked sex. It really didn't matter if it was with a man or a woman.

And in that sense, it still doesn't to me. But over time, I began to realize that I was attracted to women, which was significantly different than simply not being averse to men. I began to crave the relationship between myself and the opposite sex. Eventually, I settled into a heterosexual role and married my wife. We have a child and a second on the way.

To be honest, I'm still not averse to the idea of having sex with a man in and of itself. I am, of course, averse to the idea of cheating in my wife and I recognize that I could never have a relationship with a man like I could with a woman.

But I think my open mind about sex growing up and allowing myself to discover for myself what my preferences were is fairly solid proof in my mind that:

a) Attraction to a specific gender is genetic and...

b) Sexual labels of any kind are false.

They don't want it, is that so hard to comprehed? They don't want to see gays getting married at the same place that they want their kids to get married at someday with a member of the opposite sex, they think homosexuality is wrong, I think homosexuality is wrong, because we think its abnormal, and damnit, we're not a bunch of hicks for thinking that.


Yes it is hard to comprehend because it affects you in no way whatsoever. If the value of your love for your significant other or the quality of your relationship suffers because two guys got hitched, then it was never a meaningful relationship in the first place.

Just because two guys vowed to love each other monogomously forever, doesnt (or shouldnt for anyone that is mentally or emotionally mature) negate any feelings you have for your spouse.

They like the same sex, that's a part of their character.
So liking the opposite sex is part of your character?

I did not say you were (though the demographics imply such sometimes)
I think what offends Holy P is that he thinks that somehow, churches will be forced to marry homosexuals.

I'm sure that the Unitarian Church will have a line form. The rest cannot be forced to accept homosexuals or forced to perform the ceremony, contrary to any scare stories.

What homosexuals DO get out of the ability to marry is everything that LEGALLY comes with LEGAL marriage.

Tax rates, adopting children, shared property, health benefits, etc.

Yes I can believe that, but again it goes against my value set, that is how I feel about it and you feel a different way.
It's against your values, yes, but it would not hurt you to think about more than yourself. We are not thinking about just ourselves considering the fact that our goal is not to restrict rights but to expand them to all people. You, as a heterosexual, would have the option (see: choice) of marrying a member of your own gender; something that you would probably not utilize. However, if your views were to pass then we would not have the option of marrying the people we love. It is a restriction and a limitation on our rights.

That sounds like a church problem, not a government one.
I'm getting bleeping tired of listening to this shit. Oh, well, they can't think its abnormal, because its not their choice. Oh, sorry, I didn't know I have to change everything I think just because I am not like you. Sure, let gays marry, in fact let people marry their own toaster if they want. Let's just take a shit on the sanctity of marriage, it'll make everyone "feel" better. Hey, we shouldn't stop there, let's make all the illegals legal! Free all violent prisoners! Install Communism as our government. Let's go over to the Middle East and say to the terrorists, "We're sorry, we'll become Muslim now.", get raped in the ass, and go home and watch Jerry Springer.

...and damnit, we're not a bunch of hicks for thinking that.

Yes, I'm afraid you are. :p

I promised myself I was only going to make one comment on this thread so so here it is:
Oh well maybe next time.

Not so long as my generation is the one taking over dear. And last I checked teenage approval for gay marriage was at 51% and climbing. Which means such an amendment will never pass and more then likely within your lifetime gay marriage will be legal in all 5 states.

I promised myself I was only going to make one comment on this thread so so here it is:
Oh well maybe next time.

Not so long as my generation is the one taking over dear. And last I checked teenage approval for gay marriage was at 51% and climbing. Which means such an amendment will never pass and more then likely within your lifetime gay marriage will be legal in all 5 states.

But only mine is tolerant of both sides of the issue.


Ok I will have to admit you have a GREAT point here, and I have to think on that beacuse it does creat a delema for me, rights are rights, and there are very few that i believe should be denied certain rights......

But only mine is tolerant of both sides of the issue.


Ok I will have to admit you have a GREAT point here, and I have to think on that beacuse it does creat a delema for me, rights are rights, and there are very few that i believe should be denied certain rights......

I promised myself I was only going to make one comment on this thread so so here it is:


Not so long as my generation is the one taking over dear. And last I checked teenage approval for gay marriage was at 51% and climbing. Which means such an amendment will never pass and more then likely within your lifetime gay marriage will be legal in all 5 states.
Wow, I'm a teen, and I think you're a dumbass! If teens do think that, they'll change, because teens are nieve.

I'm getting bleeping tired of listening to this shit. Oh, well, they can't think its abnormal, because its not their choice. Oh, sorry, I didn't know I have to change everything I think just because I am not like you. Sure, let gays marry, in fact let people marry their own toaster if they want. Let's just take a shit on the sanctity of marriage, it'll make everyone "feel" better. Hey, we shouldn't stop there, let's make all the illegals legal! Free all violent prisoners! Install Communism as our government. Let's go over to the Middle East and say to the terrorists, "We're sorry, we'll become Muslim now.", get raped in the ass, and go home and watch Jerry Springer.

Only if we can have pie for dessert. :)

Only if we can have pie for dessert. :)
With medicinal marijuana in it.

I'm getting bleeping tired of listening to this shit. Oh, well, they can't think its abnormal, because its not their choice. Oh, sorry, I didn't know I have to change everything I think just because I am not like you. Sure, let gays marry, in fact let people marry their own toaster if they want. Let's just take a shit on the sanctity of marriage, it'll make everyone "feel" better. Hey, we shouldn't stop there, let's make all the illegals legal! Free all violent prisoners! Install Communism as our government. Let's go over to the Middle East and say to the terrorists, "We're sorry, we'll become Muslim now.", get raped in the ass, and go home and watch Jerry Springer.
And here's where you show your age. Honestly, stop acting so immature. Churches are not FORCED to marry people. They don't have to wed heterosexual couples if they don't want to. They're not forced to do anything. What we want DOES NOT AFFECT CHURCHES. No one is forcing anyone to believe anything; just to accept the fact that it exists and is natural and uncontrollable. It does not hurt anyone except those who are too stubborn to grow up.