NationStates Jolt Archive

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 because it does create a dilemma for me, rights are rights, and there are very few that I believe should be denied certain rights......

I believe same sex marriages should be allowed, but if a religious minister (like a rabbi, or priest, whatever) refuses to conduct the wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple since it goes against their faith, thats his right.

With medicinal marijuana in it.

YAY! :D

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.
I think homosexuality is disgusting, over 50% of America agrees with me.

I believe same sex marriages should be allowed, but if a religious minister (like a rabbi, or priest, whatever) refuses to conduct the wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple since it goes against their faith, thats his right.
Of course it's his right. We're not contesting that. But the churches should have the right to choose, and some WOULD allow same-sex marriage.

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......
That’s it … I think you misunderstood us we honestly in the end don’t care if you like or don’t like our choice … that’s a personal preference … something you are COMPLETELY entitled to.

BUT what we want is equal protection and treatment from our government too … we don’t want to restrict your rights to do the same we just want to have the same abilities you do.

Im sorry if we get angry over it but on one side is people arguing out of like or dislike … but we are arguing on a much more personal level, the outcome of these decisions can impact our entire lives, it makes it very important to us.

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.
Also, I get frickin tired of people calling me a bigot and a fascist just because I have different standards than them.

I think homosexuality is disgusting, over 50% of America agrees with me.
I could care less if you think it's disgusting. It doesn't change the fact that we exist and we should not have our rights taken away.

I think homosexuality is disgusting, over 50% of America agrees with me.
And that should affect the legal system how? last I know we were not making things illegal just because you dislike them

I find a lot of vegitables disgusting, does not mean I want to ban them

I just will not partake in eating them

I could care less if you think it's disgusting. It doesn't change the fact that we exist and we should not have our rights taken away.
Here, you want to know what I honestly think? Fuck you.

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.


Or alternatively

Lets just go ahead and make this a white christian theocracy, where the bible is the only book needed in public school and all gays, atheists, muslims, hindus and hollywood actors are forced to go thru reeducation camps (and THen moved out of the country to a small barren desert island where they can repent for their sins until they die from hunger).

Only white women can marry white men and those are the only people who can marry. Lets get all the legal immigrants and make them our slaves since the Bible condones it.

Also we'll have to either convert or kill all scientists that believe that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

I think homosexuality is disgusting, over 50% of America agrees with me.

If thats what you believe, then believe it. Not everyone believes it though (thankfully).

Also, I get frickin tired of people calling me a bigot and a fascist just because I have different standards than them.
And no, you're not a bigot and a fascist for having different thoughts. You're a bigot for trying to limit the rights of other people.

Or alternatively

Lets just go ahead and make this a white christian theocracy, where the bible is the only book needed in public school and all gays, atheists, muslims, hindus and hollywood actors are forced to go thru reeducation camps (and THen moved out of the country to a small barren desert island where they can repent for their sins until they die from hunger).

Only white women can marry white men and those are the only people who can marry. Lets get all the legal immigrants and make them our slaves since the Bible condones it.

Also we'll have to either convert or kill all scientists that believe that evolution is a valid scientific theory.
You know I was making a point, and this thing by you is full of bullshit, quit being a fucking dumbass.

Here, you want to know what I honestly think? Fuck you.
Gladly, but not by you.

You have the right to an opinion, I just think you're wrong.
And I think you're wrong. More than that, I think I'm right, but that doesn't mean I won't explain my reasoning to you. Yet you don't want to return the courtesy? Fine. There's no rule that says you have to, but that will leave me with no way to interpret your statements except by my own point of view. So, without further explanation from you, I must conclude that you are deliberately choosing to support an agenda of denying rights to gays while reserving those same rights for yourself, and that your only reason for doing that is that they are gay and you are hetero. This is text book discrimination. If you want to embrace such a stand, go for it, but be prepared to face opposition.

On the other hand, if you are being misunderstood, then you will have to explain yourself if you want to clear it up. You can start by answering the questions.

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.

Again, I see you point, and have to look at it from that point of view…….

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.

In 1919, a lot of people didn't want women to be allowed to vote. It didn't make preventing women from voting right, it just meant that a lot of people wanted to be wrong.

In the 1960s, a lot of white people didn't want to sit next to black people on the bus. It didn't make forcing black people to sit in the back of the bus right, it just meant that a lot of people wanted to be wrong.

We aren't a strict democracy simply because of the danger of a tyrannical majority.

And no, you're not a bigot and a fascist for having different thoughts. You're a bigot for trying to limit the rights of other people.
That's your way of defending liberalism, I'm a bigot for limiting people's rights. Well, I think you're a sick-minded monkey!

You know I was making a point, and this thing by you is full of bullshit, quit being a fucking dumbass.

Its not bullshit, he countering your argument with another point. Duh...

Also, I get frickin tired of people calling me a bigot and a fascist just because I have different standards than them.
Yeah we just get tired of peoples dislike for our choices effecting our entire future … personally someone’s freedoms in life is more important then someone’s dislike.

If people were trying to take away your ability to practice your faith just because it was distasteful to them I would be fighting in your corner too

That's your way of defending liberalism, I'm a bigot for limiting people's rights. Well, I think you're a sick-minded monkey!
Don't you ever call me a monkey. I will not lower myself to arguing with a disrespectful child.

Also, I get frickin tired of people calling me a bigot and a fascist just because I have different standards than them.

When they're bigoted and fascist standards, what do you expect them to call you?

You think people should have a different set of rights because of who they're attracted to. That's Bigoted.

You think people should be forced to follow government controlled morality. That's fascist.

What else but bigoted and fascist fits?

And I think you're wrong. More than that, I think I'm right, but that doesn't mean I won't explain my reasoning to you. Yet you don't want to return the courtesy? Fine. There's no rule that says you have to, but that will leave me with no way to interpret your statements except by my own point of view. So, without further explanation from you, I must conclude that you are deliberately choosing to support an agenda of denying rights to gays while reserving those same rights for yourself, and that your only reason for doing that is that they are gay and you are hetero. This is text book discrimination. If you want to embrace such a stand, go for it, but be prepared to face opposition.

On the other hand, if you are being misunderstood, then you will have to explain yourself if you want to clear it up. You can start by answering the questions.
Oh, I'm discriminatory, huh?

Well, I wish to limit the rights of murderers, guess that makes me discriminatory against them, right.

I wish to limit the rights of criminals, damn I'm a bigot, huh?

I think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong. I don't call for violence against gays, I just don't want them getting married.

Even if it was a choice, should we ban people who choose certain things from doing that thing? Should we ban you from practicing your religion because its a choice?

When they're bigoted and fascist standards, what do you expect them to call you?

You think people should have a different et of rights becaus eof who they're attracted to. That's Bigoted.

You think people should be forced to foloow government controlled morality. That's fascist.

What else but bigoted and fascist fits?

Oh, sob. I'm a bigot and a fascist because I believe liberalism is bringing down my nation around me.

Oh, I'm discriminatory, huh?

Well, I wish to limit the rights of murderers, guess that makes me discriminatory against them, right.

I wish to limit the rights of criminals, damn I'm a bigot, huh?

I think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong. I don't call for violence against gays, I just don't want them getting married.
The last part makes you discriminatory. I hope that clears up some issues for you.

OhI think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong.


You know you're still allowed to think this even if we let gay people get married, right?

Don't you ever call me a monkey. I will not lower myself to arguing with a disrespectful child.
Would you like a banana? Just don't use it to masturbate.

Oh, I'm discriminatory, huh?

Well, I wish to limit the rights of murderers, guess that makes me discriminatory against them, right.

I wish to limit the rights of criminals, damn I'm a bigot, huh?

I think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong. I don't call for violence against gays, I just don't want them getting married.
Murderers surrender their freedoms by taking away a person's right to life.

Oh, sob. I'm a bigot and a fascist because I believe liberalism is bringing down my nation around me.
No, that makes you paranoid. Need any other help?

If I might make an observation, this would make us all bigots wouldn't it? If everyone partial to the people and legislation that agree with their views would is labled a bigot, then everyone with a point of view becomes a bigot. Also, the legislation merely called for a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Looking from a historicist's perspective, I could extrapolate and say that *Surprise!* The majority of marriages conducted in the world since the dawn of time have indeed been between a man and a woman. I might also even go so far as to add that the majority of cultures have been relatively "bigoted" as well as they have not viewed homosexuals positively. I should think that our country's tolerance of alternative lifestyles is somewhat impressive in comparison to the tendency of medieval europe to burn witches, dwarves, heretics, and, dare I say, homosexuals, at the stake. I am not swift to pass judgement upon people, instead wishing to take them one at a time because judging people by the group without knowing their side of the story is in fact, MY definition of bigotry. But what do I know? I am but a bigot myself.

Oh, I'm discriminatory, huh?

Well, I wish to limit the rights of murderers, guess that makes me discriminatory against them, right.

I wish to limit the rights of criminals, damn I'm a bigot, huh?

I think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong. I don't call for violence against gays, I just don't want them getting married.

Theres a difference between criminals and homosexuals. Crime is illegal for a reason, it harms people. Homosexuality isn't illegal in some places for a reason, it doesnt harm anyone.

Your thinking still doesn't change the fact that you're bigotted and a fascist.

You know you're still allowed to think this even if we let gay people get married, right?
Can't express it in the workplace.

Even today, you can be fired for voicing that opinion.

You know you're still allowed to think this even if we let gay people get married, right?
No, because it forces me to recognize a farce of a marriage.

Oh, sob. I'm a bigot and a fascist because I believe liberalism is bringing down my nation around me.

I sure hope "your" nation does fall. This ain't no theocracy, bub. And as a Christian, I don't want it to be. My Jesus is perfectly happy with me being a Christian person in a secular world. :eek:

You know I was making a point, and this thing by you is full of bullshit, quit being a fucking dumbass.


Wait so you were making a point that the laberals wanted to marry toasters and institude full blown communism in the US as being not bullshit? lol okay ScroteWrinkle. You know why you are getting so angry? Because you can't make an intelligent points with any merit. You just spout bigotry towards others for their sexual preference and say how this country should be conservative and only take on your personal values.

I think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong. I don't call for violence against gays, I just don't want them getting married.

I think you thinking this is disgusting, stupid, weird and wrong. Do I care that you exist? No.

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.
Do they think the church building will be contaminated with gay cooties or something? What if I don't want my children to get married in the same place where some bunch of bigots got married because I think bigotry is wrong, and abnormal, and I'm not a hick, either?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you can have it, then they can have it, too. The US is based on a principle of egalitarianism, and in an egalitarian society, even people you don't like still get to have the same rights under the law as you do.

The US follows the rule of law, not the rule of what makes you happy.

Oh, sob. I'm a bigot and a fascist because I believe liberalism is bringing down my nation around me.

I wouldn't know. I'm not a liberal. From my viewpoint, the Liberals and Conservatives are equally responsible because both groups want to change the constitution to reflect their agendas.

As a constitutional libertarian, I think that everything takes a back seat to personal liberty.

Can't express it in the workplace.

Even today, you can be fired for voicing that opinion.

You can be fired for commenting on the size of a woman's boobs, too. It doesn't make it an illegal comment, just inappropriate for the workplace...

No, because it forces me to recognize a farce of a marriage.

It doesn't change your personal opinions though.

You can be fired for commenting on the size of a woman's boobs, too. It doesn't make it an illegal comment, just inappropriate for the workplace...

Exactly, they set up ethics and rules in workplaces for a reason.

Oh, I'm discriminatory, huh?

Well, I wish to limit the rights of murderers, guess that makes me discriminatory against them, right.

I wish to limit the rights of criminals, damn I'm a bigot, huh?

I think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong. I don't call for violence against gays, I just don't want them getting married.

So your best argument againt limiting the rights of homosexuals is that they are gross and criminals and murderers hurt people so if we give the gays the right to marry then we must also free all teh criminals and have their babies at their will?

You can be fired for commenting on the size of a woman's boobs, too. It doesn't make it an illegal comment, just inappropriate for the workplace...
You can be fired for some inappropriate comments, but not for others, according to case law.

And a few decades ago, neither would get you fired.

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

Don't start that repulsive bullshit.
The US was created as a secular society, therefore should not have any state religion.
You're saying that homosexuality is wrong because someone wrote it in a book a little less than 2k years ago. You're just blindly following the ramblings of one fascist.
Leviticus is a joke and really has no place in christian tradition.
For the survival of your religion, I hope that it starts to lighten up.

EDIT: Note, I respect every Christian, no, every member of every faith, who is fully accepting of others' differences. Despite Leviticus being a joke, it is at the present part of the religion. Seeing past the bad points of your own faith is difficult, so I respect anyone who does this.

No, because it forces me to recognize a farce of a marriage.
No it just forces you to not discriminate against them

Maybe that is too much to ask from you

No, because it forces me to recognize a farce of a marriage.


No, it forces the govt to. You dont have to do shit.

Just like science is forced to recognize you as a human being while I might disagree.

I'm so tired of this shit. Everyday, I hear about another judge banning my religion from even being shown in public, soon they'll being tearing down churches. Everyday, I hear some empty suited, lying ACLU lawyer requesting for more reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action. Everyday, thousands of illegals come across the border to take jobs from Americans. Everyday thousands of children are aborted by some pussy teenager who can't stand to take responsibilty. And now, gays want to get married and be recognized by me? No, I'm putting my foot down. Hey, judge, you know what I think, I think you should be fired for attacking the 1st amendment. ACLU? I think you should be disbanded because you are an insult to civil liberties groups! Illegals? Go fricking home wherever you came from: Mexico, Canada, China, Britain, doesn't matter, go home. Teenagers? Get a frickin backbone and carry the kid full term and put it up for adoption, or don't have sex. Gays? Marriage is between a man and a woman. End. Of. Story.

You can be fired for some inappropriate comments, but not for others, according to case law.

And a few decades ago, neither would get you fired.

I guess I'm not sure what your point is.

It's inappropriate for me to talk about last weekend's drunken activities at work but I probably wouldn't be fired.

If I called my boss a f'in dickhead (which he is) I could be fired.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the conversation we've been having. (And, recent case law has stated that people don't really have the right to free speech at work, anyway; I don't know specifics but I remember hearing that lasw week on NPR.) We're not asking him to change his mind about what he thinks and feels, we're not asking him to even keep his mouth shut. We're just asking him not to expect other people to adhere to his (religious) beliefs.

Our position is that making gay marriage legal can really in no way affect anyone who is not gay.

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.
Well, what do you know? You and I don't disagree on absolutely everything. I agree with you completely on this point.

*gets out popcorn*

That’s it … I think you misunderstood us we honestly in the end don’t care if you like or don’t like our choice … that’s a personal preference … something you are COMPLETELY entitled to.

BUT what we want is equal protection and treatment from our government too … we don’t want to restrict your rights to do the same we just want to have the same abilities you do.

Im sorry if we get angry over it but on one side is people arguing out of like or dislike … but we are arguing on a much more personal level, the outcome of these decisions can impact our entire lives, it makes it very important to us.

Agreed, and again you all bring up some very valid points here. I have to think on them and take a new look at it...

Ok now (please don’t get mad, because I am not trying to draw any sort of comparison here) from a moral stand point (again to me if your gay who cares) what about polygamists??? Should they have the right to have more then one wife??? I do not think so. Next what about these sick twisted people that belong to MBLA (man boy love association) they want to make it ok to have sex with very young boys. Pedophiles want to be able to have sex with very young boys and girls (again I am not trying to draw any sort of comparison here to the gay issue or gay people over all, because I know that overall gay people are not this kind of person). What about people that want that right or the people that want the right to have sex with animals? I will concede the that by making marriage between a man and woman denies others rights, and as I said I have to look at it from a differing point of view that I did not really consider before.

Where is the moral line drawn? These sick groups will use the gay marriage issue to try to further there agenda (and there is absolutely no comparison here) the gay marriage issue is a valid one I admit, the rights of consenting adults should be protected, and I am moving a bit more over to your point of view (a bit) but what if the other named try to do the same, don’t they have rights. What is the moral line here and who has the clime to said rights.

Once again I am not insinuating that gay people are members of or agree with MBLA, Pedophiles, Polygamists or people that want the right to have sex with animals. But what if they a few years from now want these rights??????So please don’t take it that way, Just making a small point here. Don’t think that by bringing this into it that I think that gay people do such things or agree with them.

I'm so tired of this shit. Everyday, I hear about another judge banning my religion from even being shown in public, soon they'll being tearing down churches. Everyday, I hear some empty suited, lying ACLU lawyer requesting for more reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action. Everyday, thousands of illegals come across the border to take jobs from Americans. Everyday thousands of children are aborted by some pussy teenager who can't stand to take responsibilty. And now, gays want to get married and be recognized by me? No, I'm putting my foot down. Hey, judge, you know what I think, I think you should be fired for attacking the 1st amendment. ACLU? I think you should be disbanded because you are an insult to civil liberties groups! Illegals? Go fricking home wherever you came from: Mexico, Canada, China, Britain, doesn't matter, go home. Teenagers? Get a frickin backbone and carry the kid full term and put it up for adoption, or don't have sex. Gays? Marriage is between a man and a woman. End. Of. Story.

I like you. You're silly. :)

I think HP is tired and needs to take a nap.


If I might make an observation, this would make us all bigots wouldn't it? If everyone partial to the people and legislation that agree with their views would is labled a bigot, then everyone with a point of view becomes a bigot. Also, the legislation merely called for a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Looking from a historicist's perspective, I could extrapolate and say that *Surprise!* The majority of marriages conducted in the world since the dawn of time have indeed been between a man and a woman. I might also even go so far as to add that the majority of cultures have been relatively "bigoted" as well as they have not viewed homosexuals positively. I should think that our country's tolerance of alternative lifestyles is somewhat impressive in comparison to the tendency of medieval europe to burn witches, dwarves, heretics, and, dare I say, homosexuals, at the stake. I am not swift to pass judgement upon people, instead wishing to take them one at a time because judging people by the group without knowing their side of the story is in fact, MY definition of bigotry. But what do I know? I am but a bigot myself.
There's a fallacy here. A bigot is someone who is completely intolerant and refuses to listen to both sides. I don't think I've seen a gay-marriage supporter who hasn't listened to both sides. However, it IS very difficult to listen when the anti-gay-marriage support doesn't make any points. Homosexuality has existed in cultures which modern culture celebrates, such as the Greek and Roman societies. Great conquerers and rulers have been bi or homosexual. Marriage has existed before the time of Christ and homosexual have probably been wed to each other. Throughout history, marriage has NOT been an important thing. How often do you hear about marriage unless it concerns a great ruler? You don't. So yes, marriage has been documented as being between a man and woman because the other accounts of the population are so small in regards to it. And marriage has not been STRICTLY between a man and woman.

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.
:D This is one of the funniest cool-losing moments I've ever seen. This is right up there with Chevy Chase's "I think you're all fucked in the head" rant from "National Lampoon's Family Vacation." :D

Have a nice cup of tea, dear; you'll be fine in a moment.

Agreed, and again you all bring up some very valid points here. I have to think on them and take a new look at it...

Ok now (please don’t get mad, because I am not trying to draw any sort of comparison here) from a moral stand point (again to me if your gay who cares) what about polygamists??? Should they have the right to have more then one wife??? I do not think so. Next what about these sick twisted people that belong to MBLA (man boy love association) they want to make it ok to have sex with very young boys. Pedophiles want to be able to have sex with very young boys and girls (again I am not trying to draw any sort of comparison here to the gay issue or gay people over all, because I know that overall gay people are not this kind of person). What about people that want that right or the people that want the right to have sex with animals? I will concede the that by making marriage between a man and woman denies others rights, and as I said I have to look at it from a differing point of view that I did not really consider before.

Where is the moral line drawn? These sick groups will use the gay marriage issue to try to further there agenda (and there is absolutely no comparison here) the gay marriage issue is a valid one I admit, the rights of consenting adults should be protected, and I am moving a bit more over to your point of view (a bit) but what if the other named try to do the same, don’t they have rights. What is the moral line here and who has the clime to said rights.

Once again I am not insinuating that gay people are members of or agree with MBLA, Pedophiles, Polygamists or people that want the right to have sex with animals. But what if they a few years from now want these rights??????So please don’t take it that way, Just making a small point here. Don’t think that by bringing this into it that I think that gay people do such things or agree with them.

Marriage is still, by definition a contrct between consenting adults. Animals can't enter a legal contract. Neither can children. Or toasters.

It's not a slippery slope argument, because it isn't the same slope.

Polygamy on the other hand.... *shrug*

I think if a man is insane enough to want multiple wives, he deserves his horrible fate. :p

Of course it's his right. We're not contesting that. But the churches should have the right to choose, and some WOULD allow same-sex marriage.

But would said couple take him/her /church to court because there “rights” are being denied???? Just a thought in today’s society going to court is a big and popular thing to do.

I think HP is tired and needs to take a nap.


There's a fallacy here. A bigot is someone who is completely intolerant and refuses to listen to both sides. I don't think I've seen a gay-marriage supporter who hasn't listened to both sides. However, it IS very difficult to listen when the anti-gay-marriage support doesn't make any points. Homosexuality has existed in cultures which modern culture celebrates, such as the Greek and Roman societies. Great conquerers and rulers have been bi or homosexual. Marriage has existed before the time of Christ and homosexual have probably been wed to each other. Throughout history, marriage has NOT been an important thing. How often do you hear about marriage unless it concerns a great ruler? You don't. So yes, marriage has been documented as being between a man and woman because the other accounts of the population are so small in regards to it. And marriage has not been STRICTLY between a man and woman.
I'm not tired, I went to a dentist's appointment today and now my mouth hurts really bad.

Did you notice that we now know more about the world than the Greeks and Romans?

I'm so tired of this shit. Everyday, I hear about another judge banning my religion from even being shown in public,

Not everyone practices your religion.

soon they'll being tearing down churches.

Last time I checked the gov't funds churches.

Everyday, I hear some empty suited, lying ACLU lawyer requesting for more reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action.

Oh noes, reverse discrimination, that darn equality always getting in the way!

Everyday, thousands of illegals come across the border to take jobs from Americans.

Give me a break. What, do they jump you in the parking lot and steal your job or something? What job have you had that was taken by a mexican?

Everyday thousands of children are aborted by some pussy teenager who can't stand to take responsibilty.

Would you rather that child be born? Imagine if those "thousands of babies a day" were on earth...

And now, gays want to get married and be recognized by me? No, I'm putting my foot down. Hey, judge, you know what I think, I think you should be fired for attacking the 1st amendment.

You know what? Boo fucking hoo. You think youre being persecuted? Stop persecuting gays. You know that whole do unto others thing? Yeah looks like what goes around comes around.

But would said couple take him/her /church to court because there “rights” are being denied???? Just a thought in today’s society going to court is a big and popular thing to do.
Can't, because the church and state aren't supposed to be connected to each other. Getting wed in a church doesn't effect legal standings. It's just a ceremony.

Marriage is still, by definition a contrct between consenting adults. Animals can't enter a legal contract. Neither can children. Or toasters.

It's not a slippery slope argument, because it isn't the same slope.

Polygamy on the other hand.... *shrug*

I think if a man is insane enough to want multiple wives, he deserves his horrible fate. :p
My only concern with polygamy is that it can involve coercion--say one of the wives (or husbands) doesn't want an addition--can he or she put the kibosh on the wedding? In other words, is this a case of one person marrying many, or is it a group marriage? If it's a group, where all are equal partners, then I've no problem with it. The other situation is a little stickier.

Agreed, and again you all bring up some very valid points here. I have to think on them and take a new look at it...

Ok now (please don’t get mad, because I am not trying to draw any sort of comparison here) from a moral stand point (again to me if your gay who cares) what about polygamists??? Should they have the right to have more then one wife??? I do not think so. Next what about these sick twisted people that belong to MBLA (man boy love association) they want to make it ok to have sex with very young boys. Pedophiles want to be able to have sex with very young boys and girls (again I am not trying to draw any sort of comparison here to the gay issue or gay people over all, because I know that overall gay people are not this kind of person). What about people that want that right or the people that want the right to have sex with animals? I will concede the that by making marriage between a man and woman denies others rights, and as I said I have to look at it from a differing point of view that I did not really consider before.

Where is the moral line drawn? These sick groups will use the gay marriage issue to try to further there agenda (and there is absolutely no comparison here) the gay marriage issue is a valid one I admit, the rights of consenting adults should be protected, and I am moving a bit more over to your point of view (a bit) but what if the other named try to do the same, don’t they have rights. What is the moral line here and who has the clime to said rights.

Once again I am not insinuating that gay people are members of or agree with MBLA, Pedophiles, Polygamists or people that want the right to have sex with animals. But what if they a few years from now want these rights??????So please don’t take it that way, Just making a small point here. Don’t think that by bringing this into it that I think that gay people do such things or agree with them.


Polygamy and Polyamory are a grey area for me personally (personally Polyamory seems much more reasonable to me) it is a union of two consenting adults

The rest of your examples (while really common in the ant-gay crowd) are not even really the same topic. Like Lunitic said they are not even the same slope , they are not about people or things able to enter a CONTRACT

Which is what marriage is … a social contract. Tosters and children and animals can not sign a house lease can they? Why should they be able to sign any other contract?

I'm not tired, I went to a dentist's appointment today and now my mouth hurts really bad.

Did you notice that we now know more about the world than the Greeks and Romans?
Did you notice that we exist thousands of years later than the Greeks and Romans and that everything we know is based off what they discovered? Did you know that our language has several root words whose orgins come from Latin and Greek, and that our political structure was developed from back then?

My only concern with polygamy is that it can involve coercion--say one of the wives (or husbands) doesn't want an addition--can he or she put the kibosh on the wedding? In other words, is this a case of one person marrying many, or is it a group marriage? If it's a group, where all are equal partners, then I've no problem with it. The other situation is a little stickier.
The Ultra-liberal returns....

Here, you want to know what I honestly think? Fuck you.
Seriously, you need to take a break and calm down. Oriadeth has said nothing flaming towards you. He doesn't deserve that.

Did you notice that we exist thousands of years later than the Greeks and Romans and that everything we know is based off what they discovered? Did you know that our language has several root words whose orgins come from Latin and Greek, and that our political structure was developed from back then?
Checkmate, you got me there.

My only concern with polygamy is that it can involve coercion--say one of the wives (or husbands) doesn't want an addition--can he or she put the kibosh on the wedding? In other words, is this a case of one person marrying many, or is it a group marriage? If it's a group, where all are equal partners, then I've no problem with it. The other situation is a little stickier.
Agreed polyamory is more reasonable then polygamy as it is a group contract

Seriously, you need to take a break and calm down. Oriadeth has said nothing flaming towards you. He doesn't deserve that.
I know, I'm just very irritable right now because my damn teeth hurt like crazy.

My only concern with polygamy is that it can involve coercion--say one of the wives (or husbands) doesn't want an addition--can he or she put the kibosh on the wedding? In other words, is this a case of one person marrying many, or is it a group marriage? If it's a group, where all are equal partners, then I've no problem with it. The other situation is a little stickier.


agreed... I have no problem with multiple wives having multiple husbands if they all want it to happen.

Polygamy is something practiced by religions. If a husband dies, it is customary in some religions for a brother of the widow to marry her to take care of her, even if he already has a wife. By preventing this you are encroaching on that beloved freedom of religion.

The best thing about this is the number of posts I'm getting off it.

But would said couple take him/her /church to court because there “rights” are being denied???? Just a thought in today’s society going to court is a big and popular thing to do.

As far as I know, the state backs the church's right to their beliefs. Catholic churches don't hire women to be priests, and I imagine if that could be challenged in court a woman would have tried.

My only concern with polygamy is that it can involve coercion--say one of the wives (or husbands) doesn't want an addition--can he or she put the kibosh on the wedding? In other words, is this a case of one person marrying many, or is it a group marriage? If it's a group, where all are equal partners, then I've no problem with it. The other situation is a little stickier.

I concur. Polygamy should be a contract betwen three or more people, not two separate contracts between a man and two different women(or vice-versa) as that greatly affects the legal rights of the first spouse.

It would have to be a group marriage to protect each members' rights.

Marriage is still, by definition a contrct between consenting adults. Animals can't enter a legal contract. Neither can children. Or toasters.

It's not a slippery slope argument, because it isn't the same slope.

Polygamy on the other hand.... *shrug*

I think if a man is insane enough to want multiple wives, he deserves his horrible fate. :p


I disagree, while gay marriage may not be on par this such things, there is a moral equation here, a line of what is right and wrong (and I never said being gay was wrong, just that I can’t understand the why of it) the decline of one moral values do make it a bit easier to break down the boundaries of another moral value. Because the people that believe these sick things should be there right as well.

MBAL has a web sight the attempts to advance and abdicate there beliefs and opinions (and the Fucken ACLU) believes they have the right to abdicate child rape as free speech. So again where is the moral line??? Or do we just start doing what ever feels good, as long as no ones rights are infringed upon? Just a question, no accusations at all…..

Oh, I'm discriminatory, huh?

Well, I wish to limit the rights of murderers, guess that makes me discriminatory against them, right.

I wish to limit the rights of criminals, damn I'm a bigot, huh?

I think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong. I don't call for violence against gays, I just don't want them getting married.
You just compared gays to violent criminals. Sorry, friend, but that is a bigoted thing to do. And yes, picking a specific group of people to deny a right to just based on your own preferences is both bigoted and discriminatory. If you don't like the words, then amend your statements. If you stand by your statements, learn to cope with the words.

The Ultra-liberal returns....
You say that like it's a bad thing.

I disagree, while gay marriage may not be on par this such things, there is a moral equation here, a line of what is right and wrong (and I never said being gay was wrong, just that I can’t understand the why of it) the decline of one moral values do make it a bit easier to break down the boundaries of another moral value. Because the people that believe these sick things should be there right as well.

MBAL has a web sight the attempts to advance and abdicate there beliefs and opinions (and the Fucken ACLU) believes they have the right to abdicate child rape as free speech. So again where is the moral line??? Or do we just start doing what ever feels good, as long as no ones rights are infringed upon? Just a question, no accusations at all…..
Yes we should be able to do whatever we please as long as we don’t infringe upon others rights. (At least as far as the government is concerned)

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!
It doesn't unless it's in the Constitution and it wouldn't infringe on state's rights because once it was passed it would have to go to the states for ratification before it could become an amendment. This, of course, makes it even more ridiculous. If Arizona and Mass. both legalized gay marriage and CA recently looked the other way, what makes teh US Senate think these states would ratify a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

I disagree, while gay marriage may not be on par this such things, there is a moral equation here, a line of what is right and wrong (and I never said being gay was wrong, just that I can’t understand the why of it) the decline of one moral values do make it a bit easier to break down the boundaries of another moral value. Because the people that believe these sick things should be there right as well.

MBAL has a web sight the attempts to advance and abdicate there beliefs and opinions (and the Fucken ACLU) believes they have the right to abdicate child rape as free speech. So again where is the moral line??? Or do we just start doing what ever feels good, as long as no ones rights are infringed upon? Just a question, no accusations at all…..

If you ask me, a constitutional libertarian, then I think we should start doing whatever feels good, as long as no one's rights are infringed upon.

Morality is a personal issue, not a political one.

No, because it forces me to recognize a farce of a marriage.
Are you the IRS? If not, then YOU don't have to recognize anything.

The 1st Amendment forces me to share the country with you. If I can do it, so can you.

I concur. Polygamy should be a contract betwen three or more people, not two separate contracts between a man and two different women(or vice-versa) as that greatly affects the legal rights of the first spouse.

It would have to be a group marriage to protect each members' rights.
That's the problem with polygamy as it is currently practiced in northern Utah and southern Idaho (illegally, of course). It's a situation where the man has all the power and the women are stuck in an untenable situation.

I disagree, while gay marriage may not be on par this such things, there is a moral equation here, a line of what is right and wrong (and I never said being gay was wrong, just that I can’t understand the why of it) the decline of one moral values do make it a bit easier to break down the boundaries of another moral value. Because the people that believe these sick things should be there right as well.

MBAL has a web sight the attempts to advance and abdicate there beliefs and opinions (and the Fucken ACLU) believes they have the right to abdicate child rape as free speech. So again where is the moral line??? Or do we just start doing what ever feels good, as long as no ones rights are infringed upon? Just a question, no accusations at all…..
Well, one must consider if people are hurt in the process. Because children have not reached the age of consent, they can be easily coerced/frightened/forced/tricked into doing something that's unhealthy. That is why there's a legal age for intercourse (not that it's enforced).

MBAL has a web sight the attempts to advance and abdicate there beliefs and opinions (and the Fucken ACLU) believes they have the right to abdicate child rape as free speech.

They have the right to say pretty much anything they want. Once they do something illegal, or attempt to, that is where they must be curbed. Personally, I'm absolutely mortified with what they have to say, and I might call them all disgusting child molesters. But as long as all they do is talk, I support their right to talk. Does that make sense?

So again where is the moral line??? Or do we just start doing what ever feels good, as long as no ones rights are infringed upon? Just a question, no accusations at all…..

As a legal right? Yes. That's exactly why our laws exist. To protect our rights. Murder isn't illegal because it's immoral. Murder is illegal because it denies another person his or her rights. The law isn't our personal moral code. We can have morals that are stricter than the law. I certainly expect more of myself than the law does.

That's the problem with polygamy as it is currently practiced in northern Utah and southern Idaho (illegally, of course). It's a situation where the man has all the power and the women are stuck in an untenable situation.

Maybe we should mix a little California DIvorce law into Polygamy and see what happens. :p

I'm so tired of this shit. Everyday, I hear about another judge banning my religion from even being shown in public, soon they'll being tearing down churches. Everyday, I hear some empty suited, lying ACLU lawyer requesting for more reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action. Everyday, thousands of illegals come across the border to take jobs from Americans. Everyday thousands of children are aborted by some pussy teenager who can't stand to take responsibilty. And now, gays want to get married and be recognized by me? No, I'm putting my foot down. Hey, judge, you know what I think, I think you should be fired for attacking the 1st amendment. ACLU? I think you should be disbanded because you are an insult to civil liberties groups! Illegals? Go fricking home wherever you came from: Mexico, Canada, China, Britain, doesn't matter, go home. Teenagers? Get a frickin backbone and carry the kid full term and put it up for adoption, or don't have sex. Gays? Marriage is between a man and a woman. End. Of. Story.


Alright apparently it takes a teen to beat sense into everyone else on the planet. Wow I have suddenly decided to leave my best friend because she is a bisexual, kill one of the sweetest women on the planet because she was rapped and got pregnent, and abandon my religion just because you think it is wrong. And suddenly it is wrong for immigrants to come here. Doofus this country was based on immigrants.

Know what kid? Grow the fuck up. Wake up and smell the maturity. Come back later when you have logic to back up your shit instead of just conservitive bigoted bull crap.

And know what jackass? Some of us take offence at seeing christian shit all over the fucking place and yet the instant we post something of our faith we need to take it down for *inciting offence*

This is a secular nation dipshit.

Originally Posted by Holy Paradise
I'm not tired, I went to a dentist's appointment today and now my mouth hurts really bad.

Did you notice that we now know more about the world than the Greeks and Romans?
Did you notice that we exist thousands of years later than the Greeks and Romans and that everything we know is based off what they discovered? Did you know that our language has several root words whose orgins come from Latin and Greek, and that our political structure was developed from back then?
And did you further know that water is wet, and that the sandwich was invented by the Earl of Sandwich so he could eat and play cards at the same time? :D

As a legal right? Yes. That's exactly why our laws exist. To protect our rights. Murder isn't illegal because it's immoral. Murder is illegal because it denies another person his or her rights. The law isn't our personal moral code. We can have morals that are stricter than the law. I certainly expect more of myself than the law does.

Ahh it is good to see a fellow Pittsburgher who is quite wise. I was just about to type just about that when I saw you did first. To expand on this, when making laws we must look at whether or not something is for the betterment of our society and if rights are protected. Is allowing gay people to get married and gain the benefits of marriage something that is good for our society? Of course it is, it makes all our citizens equal and gives necessary rights like the right to visit your loved one in a hospital. Therefore there is no lawful reason why gay people should not be allowed to get married, only a bigotted, illogical and ignorant reason that is afflicting way too many people and almost makes me ashamed to live in the same nation with these people.

I am glad the American Constitution, and Freedom in our nation was preserved.

I don't know how passing it would protect the institution of marriage as it is, its about tax and health rights that everyone has a right to ,which is really a government thing not a social thing.

Gay people already can get married in as public of a ceremony as they want to, in front of everyone, and have a Christian ceremony. No law against that. And the majority of people I hear, just every day, will call an gay marriage just what it is, and call the people in it "partners" even if it was ceremonial. Even the press calls gay committed "married" couples partners.

So how is this protecting the sanctity of the institution of marriage? There is the "legal" institution, then there is the social/religious institution. Gay people can already do the social/religious institution thing.

Pagan Handfasting is recognized just as much as a Hindu wedding as a legal marriage for straight couples LOL, so how is this supposedly protecting marriage for the Christians again?

This is only to recognize the legal rights of gay couples to health, and tax benefits and to recognize their spouse as legally entitled as the spouses in an straight marriage. Whats wrong with granting people who are long term partners, and had an ceremony to recognize that their equal legal rights?

Its an illusion that this was an "marriage protection bill" its more like "dont grant other people equal legal rights under the law".

And did you further know that water is wet, and that the sandwich was invented by the Earl of Sandwich so he could eat and play cards at the same time? :D
Water is wet?! Oh Em Ef Gee!

I know, I'm just very irritable right now because my damn teeth hurt like crazy.
Well, I know how that is, but still. Painkillers are terrific things. They work much better than cyber-screaming at strangers.

Well, one must consider if people are hurt in the process. Because children have not reached the age of consent, they can be easily coerced/frightened/forced/tricked into doing something that's unhealthy. That is why there's a legal age for intercourse (not that it's enforced).


I agree, but again, these people will attempt to use this issue to further there sick agenda. They will argue that there rights are being stepped on and denied. They as of now try to make the argument that a child of 8 can decide and give consent, so what to stop them from gaining so called ‘scientific” evidence that proves there way of thinking. It is like the days of segregation and reasons that black peoples were used to keep blacks poor, they are dumb, they are inferior and so on, so call ‘scientific” evidence was used to validate that point, even though all that was junk science and propaganda to justify the position.

I am not saying it will happen anytime soon, but these sick people will try it once people get use to the idea of gay marriage (and I for one do believe it will happen Gay marriage with in the next few years, regardless what I think) eventually they will try to push there agenda on others.

Water is wet?! Oh Em Ef Gee!
Shocking, ain't it?

I agree, but again, these people will attempt to use this issue to further there sick agenda. They will argue that there rights are being stepped on and denied. They as of now try to make the argument that a child of 8 can decide and give consent, so what to stop them from gaining so called ‘scientific” evidence that proves there way of thinking. It is like the days of segregation and reasons that black peoples were used to keep blacks poor, they are dumb, they are inferior and so on, so call ‘scientific” evidence was used to validate that point, even though all that was junk science and propaganda to justify the position.

I am not saying it will happen anytime soon, but these sick people will try it once people get use to the idea of gay marriage (and I for one do believe it will happen Gay marriage with in the next few years, regardless what I think) eventually they will try to push there agenda on others.
However, unlike gay marriage, this particular issue deals with something that is already written into law. How many children are fighting for this? How many children even know what the heck is going on? So until the child is able to vote, s/he won't be able to enter into a contract unless designated by his parents.

I agree, but again, these people will attempt to use this issue to further there sick agenda. They will argue that there rights are being stepped on and denied. They as of now try to make the argument that a child of 8 can decide and give consent, so what to stop them from gaining so called ‘scientific” evidence that proves there way of thinking. It is like the days of segregation and reasons that black peoples were used to keep blacks poor, they are dumb, they are inferior and so on, so call ‘scientific” evidence was used to validate that point, even though all that was junk science and propaganda to justify the position.

I am not saying it will happen anytime soon, but these sick people will try it once people get use to the idea of gay marriage (and I for one do believe it will happen Gay marriage with in the next few years, regardless what I think) eventually they will try to push there agenda on others.Do me one favor, please--no matter what else you argue on this topic, just stop equating pedophilia with homosexuality. The two are not related, not in the slightest. The vast majority of pedophilia cases involve opposite sexes, not same sexes. Yes, there are homosexual pedophiles, but they are the minority, both among pedophiles and among homosexuals, just as hetero pedophiles are the minority among heterosexuals.

Well, if that bloody Amendment ever does pass (And God help the US if it ever does), then you're all more than welcome to come to Britain. We're rather more accepting over here. Well, even though we don't have gay marriage yet; we do have civil unions, and hopefully one day gay marriages as well.

Do me one favor, please--no matter what else you argue on this topic, just stop equating pedophilia with homosexuality.

I don't think he's equating them, I really don't. I think he's trying to use the slippery slope argument. That granting gay marriage could lead to us granting something that's harmful, although there are clear-cut reasons why that wouldn't happen.

Well, if that bloody Amendment ever does pass (And God help the US if it ever does), then you're all more than welcome to come to Britain. We're rather more accepting over here. Well, even though we don't have gay marriage yet; we do have civil unions, and hopefully one day gay marriages as well.

Thank you my dear. Several of us are already making plans if the damn thing goes through. (Which it wont for as long as I have a breath in my body)

I don't think he's equating them, I really don't. I think he's trying to use the slippery slope argument. That granting gay marriage could lead to us granting something that's harmful, although there are clear-cut reasons why that wouldn't happen.
It's the guilt by association game. Pedophilia ought not come up in any discussion of same sex marriage, because it's just not related, and given the history of gay-bashers playing the child-molester card, there's just no call for it.

It's the guilt by association game. Pedophilia ought not come up in any discussion of same sex marriage, because it's just not related, and given the history of gay-bashers playing the child-molester card, there's just no call for it.
Indeed.

Well, if that bloody Amendment ever does pass (And God help the US if it ever does), then you're all more than welcome to come to Britain. We're rather more accepting over here. Well, even though we don't have gay marriage yet; we do have civil unions, and hopefully one day gay marriages as well.
I'd certainly consider moving to either Britain or Canada, but I'd need some sort of garantee that I'd be allowed to keep my guns.:sniper: :mp5:

It's the guilt by association game. Pedophilia ought not come up in any discussion of same sex marriage, because it's just not related, and given the history of gay-bashers playing the child-molester card, there's just no call for it.

I understand what you are saying, but I really don't think he meant that. I agree that he shouldn't use them in the same argument because others will see it as equating them, but I just don't think that this person was...

I understand what you are saying, but I really don't think he meant that. I agree that he shouldn't use them in the same argument because others will see it as equating them, but I just don't think that this person was...

The one major issue with equating them, even if it was unintentional, it portrays homosexuality as evil, which it is not unless you are going by biblical interpretation.

Wow an entire thread and yet again not one intelligent argument from the fundies, the guy Vo--- guy must be a Neanderthal no scratch that as Neanderthals at least had some for of logic and he didn't even have that.


*Yawns*

"OMFG Canada is still there and life is still normal! but they let the ebil gayze mary end jebuz syze sects is ebil"

Oh just heard that one a few trillion times. Tell ya kids what, if you take of the Jesus blinders and actually learn a bit about your own bable (Renamed by me for accuracy) you'll see once you remove gawd from the picture every thing actually makes allot more sense.

As most have nailed every argument shut for the idiocy they where, I'll just say wake up, learn at least some thing and how many times does religion need to get it wrong be for you realize yours is just as fucked as the rest.

ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER (You better he "just" Might be real and since you can't prove its not it is safer to then not) <Fundy logic at its best

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

While I agree it should be legal, don't think that once it IS legal, the officiator can just refuse to perform. If he's permitted by the state/county/locality to perform a wedding ceremony, then the state might very well take the authority to compel a person to perform the ceremony.

Think it won't happen? Just ask the pharmacists who, because they are licensed by the state, are compelled to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or emergency contraception even though they find such pills immoral.

May or may not happen that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

I'd certainly consider moving to either Britain or Canada, but I'd need some sort of garantee that I'd be allowed to keep my guns.:sniper: :mp5:

I definitely understand. The day the Constitution falls to religious extremists is the day it's time to question whether the United States in it's current form is worth fighting for anymore. :(

While I agree it should be legal, don't think that once it IS legal, the officiator can just refuse to perform. If he's permitted by the state/county/locality to perform a wedding ceremony, then the state might very well take the authority to compel a person to perform the ceremony.

Think it won't happen? Just ask the pharmacists who, because they are licensed by the state, are compelled to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or emergency contraception even though they find such pills immoral.

May or may not happen that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
A pharmacy can't (or shouldn't) just make up its own arbitrary rules. A church can do that. They can say owning a Dustbuster is evil and then throw out the people that own Dustbusters. A pharmicist shouldn't have the right to make moral decisions.

I don't think he's equating them, I really don't. I think he's trying to use the slippery slope argument. That granting gay marriage could lead to us granting something that's harmful, although there are clear-cut reasons why that wouldn't happen.
I don't think he meant to equate them, either, but the mere fact that he brought it up and is choosing to focus on child molesters now is muddying the issue. In context, it can be taken that he indirectly equates the two as items on his personal list of things he thinks are immoral, but in reality -- in terms of their impact on society and individuals -- they are not even comparable, let alone similar. And as Nazz points out, there is also the context of spurious accusations of child molesting often being made against gays to consider.

As for his slippery slope argument, that kind of argument only works when you can show a direct causal or progressive relation between the current instance and the predicted future instances. Even then, it is a weak argument. (I know this, even though I sometimes use it.) Since homosexuality and child molestation are not connected in any way, there is no way that equal rights for gays could ever lead to the decriminalization of child molestation. They two completely different things.

Why is it every election people suddenly realize that there is gay people in the world all over again? Somebody help me figure this out.

Crap.:mad:
*smacks the congressmen*
That's what you get for disobedience!

While I agree it should be legal, don't think that once it IS legal, the officiator can just refuse to perform. If he's permitted by the state/county/locality to perform a wedding ceremony, then the state might very well take the authority to compel a person to perform the ceremony.

Think it won't happen? Just ask the pharmacists who, because they are licensed by the state, are compelled to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or emergency contraception even though they find such pills immoral.

May or may not happen that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
What a false equation. First of all, marriage is primarily a civil ceremony--ministers who perform them have to be registered with the city or county or state (depending on where you are), not the other way around. You don't automatically get to marry people just because you're a minister--I know, because my dad married people and had to register every time he performed one.

But to compare that to being a licensed pharmacist whose job it is to dispense prescribed medicines? That's a stretch worthy of Nadia Comaneci. A pharmacist is bound by the ethics of his/her profession to dispense drugs prescribed by doctors unless there's a chance of a bad drug interaction. That's it--no personal ethos gets to countermand that. It's their job and they get paid to do it, and unlike marriage, there's no place other than a pharmacy where a woman can go to get birth control. You can go to the courthouse to get married. You can find a church that will accept you and get married. You can't go to the courthouse to get your fucking birth control pills or emergency contraception--you can only go to a pharmacy.

On a side note, I just want to say that I never expected this thread to go 25 pages. Jeez.

hell gay marriage should be legal and you know what? if the church does think it -- for lack of a better word-- icky- then they can just go to a courthouse right? i think so.. dont nail me down on thet thought but i mean its not exactly the most romantic place in the world but its better then never getting married to the person you love right?
BTW why is it so wrong? it all goes back to the guy who wrote the bible and his philosophical views right?

why is it when people who have nothing better to do wiht one of the most poerful jobs in the country, they decide to make 1\4 of the country over-whelmingly happy, half disapointed an pissed off ,and the other quareter ready to give up the whole fucking thing??:upyours:

While I agree it should be legal, don't think that once it IS legal, the officiator can just refuse to perform. If he's permitted by the state/county/locality to perform a wedding ceremony, then the state might very well take the authority to compel a person to perform the ceremony.

Think it won't happen? Just ask the pharmacists who, because they are licensed by the state, are compelled to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or emergency contraception even though they find such pills immoral.

May or may not happen that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
That's a bad comparison because"

There is no part of the Constitution that says Congress shall make no law respecting pharmacies. The pharmacist, as a person, can believe what he likes, but his job does not have the same protections that the church does. The state can require things from a pharmacist that it cannot require from a church.

A pharmacy can't (or shouldn't) just make up its own arbitrary rules. A church can do that. They can say owning a Dustbuster is evil and then throw out the people that own Dustbusters. A pharmicist shouldn't have the right to make moral decisions.

A pharmacy is a business. If he/she doesn't want to sell toasters or sod, who's going to make them? But BC's are controversial -- so the pharmacy owner is forced to sell them because of the spotlight.

What about secular marriage? One that isn't sanctioned by the church. Could a non-religious officiant refuse to perform a marriage ceremony based on personal beliefs?

A pharmacy is a business. If he/she doesn't want to sell toasters or sod, who's going to make them? But BC's are controversial -- so the pharmacy owner is forced to sell them because of the spotlight.

What about secular marriage? One that isn't sanctioned by the church. Could a non-religious officiant refuse to perform a marriage ceremony based on personal beliefs?
Probably, as long as there were some other way for the two to get married. See, even in your bogus birth control argument, the compromise has been that the pharmacist doesn't have to fill the prescription if there's another one on duty who will fill it. The only way the pharmacist has to violate his or her "principles" is if there's no one else to do it--the patient's need for the medication trumps the pharmacist's right to express his or herself. Sorry, but that's what you sign up for when you become a pharmacist--no one makes you go through all that extra schooling, after all.

A pharmacy is a business. If he/she doesn't want to sell toasters or sod, who's going to make them? But BC's are controversial -- so the pharmacy owner is forced to sell them because of the spotlight.

What about secular marriage? One that isn't sanctioned by the church. Could a non-religious officiant refuse to perform a marriage ceremony based on personal beliefs?
To my way of thinking, this obligates a pharmacist to give a care he is entrusted to give:

Oath of a Pharmacist
At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.

I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

Developed by the American Pharmaceutical Association Academy of Students of Pharmacy/American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Council of Deans (APhA-ASP/AACP-COD) Task Force on Professionalism; June 26, 1994

What about secular marriage? One that isn't sanctioned by the church. Could a non-religious officiant refuse to perform a marriage ceremony based on personal beliefs?

S/he already can. Do you know how hard it is to find an officiant? I don't know about the courthouse situation, but when we got married, (ultimately in our own church with our own minister) we spoke to several officiants. They all asked us our religion, where we were planning to marry, what day of the week, what time.

One officiant never did Sunday weddings. One officiant chose not to marry people in one specific outdoor location because she was allergic to flowers that grew there. Others chose not to marry members of certain religions because some of the things they would be required to say to and ask of the couple disagreed with their own personal beliefs.

I don't know how it would work in the "show up at the courthouse and get married" situation, though. I imagine judges are not now allowed to refuse to marry a couple based on their own opinions (since they act as agents of the law) so they knew that when they took their jobs that they could be required to do something personally or morally objectionable in the course of representing and upholding the law.

See, even in your bogus birth control argument, the compromise has been that the pharmacist doesn't have to fill the prescription if there's another one on duty who will fill it. The only way the pharmacist has to violate his or her "principles" is if there's no one else to do it--the patient's need for the medication trumps the pharmacist's right to express his or herself.

And in my head, the pharmacy ought to be obligated to at all times have a pharmacist willing to fill all prescriptions in the building. No, that doesn't negate them hiring someone who is not willing, just that that person should never be left alone in the store for more than 30 minutes. (I don't consider it hardship to tell a customer that it will be 30 minutes before her prescription is filled; hell I hear it every time I fill anything and I'm usually the only customer in the store.)

What a false equation. First of all, marriage is primarily a civil ceremony--ministers who perform them have to be registered with the city or county or state (depending on where you are), not the other way around. You don't automatically get to marry people just because you're a minister--I know, because my dad married people and had to register every time he performed one.

Yes, I'm VERY aware of this. But that's the thing -- you have to be granted permission by some government authority to perform a wedding ceremony. What if that government authority says you won't be given permission if you refuse to perform a wedding ceremony to a same sex couple.

From http://family-law.freeadvice.com/performmarriageceremony.htm:
Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed.
Some states have laws that permit other persons to apply for authority to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages -- the grant of authority is valid for one day -- and thus officiate at the wedding of family or friends on that one day.

But to compare that to being a licensed pharmacist whose job it is to dispense prescribed medicines? That's a stretch worthy of Nadia Comaneci. A pharmacist is bound by the ethics of his/her profession to dispense drugs prescribed by doctors unless there's a chance of a bad drug interaction.

Not true, at least in California. If it is, I'd like to know your source.

That's it--no personal ethos gets to countermand that. It's their job and they get paid to do it, and unlike marriage, there's no place other than a pharmacy where a woman can go to get birth control.

What if the person owns the pharmacy, not just works there? But there is a choice in where to get BC's -- there's a different pharmacy.

You can go to the courthouse to get married. You can find a church that will accept you and get married. You can't go to the courthouse to get your fucking birth control pills or emergency contraception--you can only go to a pharmacy.

True.

Yes, I'm VERY aware of this. But that's the thing -- you have to be granted permission by some government authority to perform a wedding ceremony. What if that government authority says you won't be given permission if you refuse to perform a wedding ceremony to a same sex couple.

As American citizens it is our responsibility to make sure that no law, local, state or federal is written thusly. If this is the biggest concern that can be found with passing an amendment defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults, we've got to be in for the easiest transition following major law's institution, ever. (Providing we ever get that definition.)

As American citizens it is our responsibility to make sure that no law, local, state or federal is written thusly. If this is the biggest concern that can be found with passing an amendment defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults, we've got to be in for the easiest transition following major law's institution, ever. (Providing we ever get that definition.)

I'm saying that marriage of two same-sex persons should be equally as legal as marriage of two opposite-sex persons. I just worry about one person's freedoms not infringing on another person's freedoms. (I've been playing devil's advocate here - read the first sentence of my first post.)

I'm saying that marriage of two same-sex persons should be equally as legal as marriage of two opposite-sex persons. I just worry about one person's freedoms not infringing on another person's freedoms. (I've been playing devil's advocate here - read the first sentence of my first post.)
There are always going to be infringements--it's unrealistic to expect otherwise. The best we can hope for, then, is to make sure that those infringements, when they happen, are warranted, that some greater good is being served by them. Thst's why when there's a workaround, we seek to use it, and offer a compromise--like in the emergency contraception situation. As long as the patient can get her medication, that's the important part.

But for some, that's not good enough--there have been cases where pharmacists refused to return prescriptions to patients, thereby imposing their personal moral judgments on the patients, and there's no excuse for that. In the case of marriage, if a person doesn't want to marry a couple but there are other people available, then no one should be forced to do so, and since the stakes are far lower, there's less of a time frame to worry about.

I'm saying that marriage of two same-sex persons should be equally as legal as marriage of two opposite-sex persons. I just worry about one person's freedoms not infringing on another person's freedoms. (I've been playing devil's advocate here - read the first sentence of my first post.)

That was what I was responding to.

When the laws granting marriage to gays are written, all of the corresponding law changes that must be made must be closely monitored. The laws dictating who may perform a marriage must be monitored so that they do not include any prohibitions against a potential officiant deciding however s/he chooses who to marry.

That would be the responsibility of the American public - to ensure that in enacting the rights of the potential marriers that the rights of the officiants are protected.

What I think is that marriage should not be affected by the government. Effectivly, anyone can marry anyone as long as both parties agree and are over 18. Polygamists, homosesexuals, bi-sexuals, heterosexuals, etc. Then they apply for the economical benefits of marriage, sorta like a civil union.

Did you know that I could fly to New York, bribe a crack whore with 50 bucks to agree, and marry her? My new marriage would entitle me to tax breaks, extra benefits at work, additional legal status, and would allow me to adopt children and get lower rates on insurance, loans and mortgages. I could, in fact, go to Europe, Mexico, or the Carribean for a "romantic marriage ceremony" or I could immigrate to this nation married. In either case, without any additional cost or obligation, and only on the power of my word, my marriage would be recognized by any state in this country and the federal government.

On the other hand, I could fall in love with someone of the same sex, live in a lifelong committed relationship, and be denied these rights and benefits. In fact, while same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, it is currently illegal for someone living outside of Massachusetts to get married in Massachusetts for the sole purpose of avoiding their own state's laws. I also cannot go to Europe to marry someone of the same sex or immigrate to this nation as a married gay man and expect any of our 50 states or the federal government to recognize that marriage.

Those opposed to gay marriage have stated that same sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. The 53% divorce rate in this nation is a sign that marriage is an institution that isn't currently stable to begin with. While I can legally benefit from a sham marriage in any state in this nation (that practice has spawned a whole marriage industry in Las Vegas), gay marriages based on love are a threat to marriage and "the family".

The religious in this nation would have us believe that gay marriage should be illegal because homosexuality is wrong. Those same religious citizens demand that the US sanction such nations as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran because their governments force religious (either atheist or Muslim) beliefs and values on Christian minorities. Well I hate to break it to them, but the belief that homosexuality is "wrong" is a religious one, not a scientific one. Science, Medicine, Psychology and Government no longer hold that homosexuality is a choice nor that it is immoral or criminal. The fact that its ok for the religious in this nation to force their religious beliefs on minorities here is hypocricy at its best.

The Democrats in this country advocate "Civil Unions" in place of same sex marriages. This is not equality, this is an example of "seperate but equal" which was soundly defeated in the Supreme Court Decision "Brown vs. Board of Education" in 1954.

Marriage is a religious institution. It has no place in government whatsoever. Federal and State governments should ONLY administer and sell licenses for Civil Unions, and should not administer marriage in any way shape or form. They should not offer any benefits to those participating in a religious tradition, either. Any benefits available must be available to all, and therefore must be based on Civil Unions. Those wishing to get married should seek endorsement from their respective religious institutions. If one respective church would advocate gay marriage, that is no business of another church.

This is further proof that separation of church and state in this nation needs to be more strictly adhered to. The founders of our nation wanted to make sure that religious minorities were protected from the religious majority meddling in government. If current "religious right" fundamentalist Christians' involvement in government isn't an example of that fear in action, then I dont know what is.

It's spineless, but at the moment seperate but equal would be a step up. I have no respect for the democrats even suggesting it, but I can understand why they do.

Did you know that I could fly to New York, bribe a crack whore with 50 bucks to agree, and marry her? My new marriage would entitle me to tax breaks, extra benefits at work, additional legal status, and would allow me to adopt children and get lower rates on insurance, loans and mortgages. I could, in fact, go to Europe, Mexico, or the Carribean for a "romantic marriage ceremony" or I could immigrate to this nation married. In either case, without any additional cost or obligation, and only on the power of my word, my marriage would be recognized by any state in this country and the federal government.

On the other hand, I could fall in love with someone of the same sex, live in a lifelong committed relationship, and be denied these rights and benefits. In fact, while same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, it is currently illegal for someone living outside of Massachusetts to get married in Massachusetts for the sole purpose of avoiding their own state's laws. I also cannot go to Europe to marry someone of the same sex or immigrate to this nation as a married gay man and expect any of our 50 states or the federal government to recognize that marriage.

Those opposed to gay marriage have stated that same sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. The 53% divorce rate in this nation is a sign that marriage is an institution that isn't currently stable to begin with. While I can legally benefit from a sham marriage in any state in this nation (that practice has spawned a whole marriage industry in Las Vegas), gay marriages based on love are a threat to marriage and "the family".

The religious in this nation would have us believe that gay marriage should be illegal because homosexuality is wrong. Those same religious citizens demand that the US sanction such nations as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran because their governments force religious (either atheist or Muslim) beliefs and values on Christian minorities. Well I hate to break it to them, but the belief that homosexuality is "wrong" is a religious one, not a scientific one. Science, Medicine, Psychology and Government no longer hold that homosexuality is a choice nor that it is immoral or criminal. The fact that its ok for the religious in this nation to force their religious beliefs on minorities here is hypocricy at its best.

The Democrats in this country advocate "Civil Unions" in place of same sex marriages. This is not equality, this is an example of "seperate but equal" which was soundly defeated in the Supreme Court Decision "Brown vs. Board of Education" in 1954.

Marriage is a religious institution. It has no place in government whatsoever. Federal and State governments should ONLY administer and sell licenses for Civil Unions, and should not administer marriage in any way shape or form. They should not offer any benefits to those participating in a religious tradition, either. Any benefits available must be available to all, and therefore must be based on Civil Unions. Those wishing to get married should seek endorsement from their respective religious institutions. If one respective church would advocate gay marriage, that is no business of another church.

This is further proof that separation of church and state in this nation needs to be more strictly adhered to. The founders of our nation wanted to make sure that religious minorities were protected from the religious majority meddling in government. If current "religious right" fundamentalist Christians' involvement in government isn't an example of that fear in action, then I dont know what is.
Wow. I'd ask for permission to send this to all of the Republican senators supporting the ban if I thought it would make a difference (they're probably too busy with their trophy-whores anyway).

Feel free. I wrote it out of frustration myself. I doubt any of them would change their minds.

It's spineless, but at the moment seperate but equal would be a step up. I have no respect for the democrats even suggesting it, but I can understand why they do.
They believe--with some justification--that sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Civil unions are good, marriage is perfect, but I think in the long run the point may be moot anyway. Remember after the Massachussetts Supreme Court made their ruling, every wingnut on earth was predicting that the legislature would reverse it, that the voters would overturn it, but what happened? Two years later, pro-same sex marriage candidates beat anti-same sex marriage legislators, and the polls show a complete reversal of public opinion, so that the majority favors keeping same sex marriage. It doesn't take long to change public opinion when you're faced with the human face of marriage.

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

Brilliant response.

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

By definition, AMENDING the Constitution is changing it.

amendment
One entry found for amendment.
Main Entry: amend·ment
Pronunciation: &-'men(d)-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act of amending : CORRECTION
2 : a material (as compost or sand) that aids plant growth indirectly by improving the condition of the soil
3 a : the process of amending by parliamentary or constitutional procedure b : an alteration proposed or effected by this process <the 18th amendment>

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

So straights only want to get married for the tax breaks?

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: :(


Ah, checks and balances.

This isn't conservative at all. It's reactionary.

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.

Prohibition got appealed. But it would be hard to do it again.

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.


No, it's just avoiding betraying others.

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.

Your reasoning is faulty. I suggest you research marriage in Greece. Go ahead.

Are you also suggesting that since marriage between children and adults was legal for hundreds if not thousands of years, that one should marry and have intercourse with an eleven year old?

Are you going to reply to every post in this thread so far Kat?

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.

You don't see this as a massive overreaction to people you don't know and never will being able to have a legal contract recognized?

Sad.

I'll also note that the only person I saw bringing up hicks was...
Oh, never mind.

I think homosexuality is disgusting, over 50% of America agrees with me.

And that's why it failed.... again. Because obviously, the majority has spoken.

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

There is no "upcomming amendment" to eliminate on the issue, the framework for the civil operation of marriage amongst homosexuals already exists within the scope of the existing rights enumerated and non-enumerated (accepted by precedent); the purpose of this attempted amendment is to squelch the capacity of a segment of the population to attaining their endowed equality.

Such can be seen by the absurd idiocy of the proposals backers claiming to "protect marriage between a man and a woman", considering such isn't even in need of "protection" nor even being "threatened" in the first place.

It's nothing but idiocy spewed forth to feed idiots.

Here, you want to know what I honestly think? Fuck you.


You know what I think? Knock off the flaming.

Holy crap, Kat is.

Viva las homos, si! :eek:

I'm not tired, I went to a dentist's appointment today and now my mouth hurts really bad.

Did you notice that we now know more about the world than the Greeks and Romans?


Did you notice that some of their roads, aqueducts, amphitheatres, some of their temples (which have been converted into churches in some cases), and oh, that big monument in Rome where they used to have chariot races are still standing and yet OUR roads, buildings, and bridges are failing abysmally every time you watch the news?

Did you further notice that we still read their history and literature and what we have is Lurlene McDaniels?

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.

Thank God you're wrong, the Majority does not "rule by vote" in this country or its states.... Every law passed is still ultimately accountable to the precepts of the foundation of the whole system as interpreted by the judicary.... Such exists to prevent the evil of tyrany-by-majority, where any majority can run amuck over minority rights....

I am comfortable in the fact that homosexual-marriage, or the alteration of marriage into civil-union as a whole incorporating homosexuals is an inevitability... Simply from the fact that it is a natural course of the foundational precepts which define us as a people, just as women getting the vote, black recognition as full citizens and the like was... It was resisted, but in the end the system must ultimately conform with the precepts to which it established itself upon.

I have read through some of this crap ... It just makes me wish a huge meteor would crash into this big ball of dirt we live on and sterilize it so things would start all over.

I am so tired of hearing people bicker over this and that ... everyone believes thier ideas are more important than anyone elses. In the scheme of things ... no one really matters. Seems like the entire world is full of bitching little children ... everyone of them want it thier way.

Sorry for the rant ... have no opinion either way on the whole gay thing ... but then again I am not gay ... just tired of reading smartass coments, watching the news on TV, and having morons pushing thier values and beliefs down my throat.

Alright apparently it takes a teen to beat sense into everyone else on the planet. Wow I have suddenly decided to leave my best friend because she is a bisexual, kill one of the sweetest women on the planet because she was rapped and got pregnent, and abandon my religion just because you think it is wrong. And suddenly it is wrong for immigrants to come here. Doofus this country was based on immigrants.

Know what kid? Grow the fuck up. Wake up and smell the maturity. Come back later when you have logic to back up your shit instead of just conservitive bigoted bull crap.

And know what jackass? Some of us take offence at seeing christian shit all over the fucking place and yet the instant we post something of our faith we need to take it down for *inciting offence*

This is a secular nation dipshit.


Knock it off.

While I agree it should be legal, don't think that once it IS legal, the officiator can just refuse to perform. If he's permitted by the state/county/locality to perform a wedding ceremony, then the state might very well take the authority to compel a person to perform the ceremony.

Think it won't happen? Just ask the pharmacists who, because they are licensed by the state, are compelled to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or emergency contraception even though they find such pills immoral.

May or may not happen that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.


Cannot happen. Congress shall not establish a religion, nor interefere in someone's right to practice their religion, remember?

Are you going to reply to every post in this thread so far Kat?


Holy crap, Kat is.

Oh yes. Fourteen posts in nearly 400 is "replying to every post in this thread so far".

;) Perhaps you should brush up on your math skillz?

Did you know that I could fly to New York, bribe a crack whore with 50 bucks to agree, and marry her? My new marriage would entitle me to tax breaks, extra benefits at work, additional legal status, and would allow me to adopt children and get lower rates on insurance, loans and mortgages. I could, in fact, go to Europe, Mexico, or the Carribean for a "romantic marriage ceremony" or I could immigrate to this nation married. In either case, without any additional cost or obligation, and only on the power of my word, my marriage would be recognized by any state in this country and the federal government.

On the other hand, I could fall in love with someone of the same sex, live in a lifelong committed relationship, and be denied these rights and benefits. In fact, while same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, it is currently illegal for someone living outside of Massachusetts to get married in Massachusetts for the sole purpose of avoiding their own state's laws. I also cannot go to Europe to marry someone of the same sex or immigrate to this nation as a married gay man and expect any of our 50 states or the federal government to recognize that marriage.

Those opposed to gay marriage have stated that same sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. The 53% divorce rate in this nation is a sign that marriage is an institution that isn't currently stable to begin with. While I can legally benefit from a sham marriage in any state in this nation (that practice has spawned a whole marriage industry in Las Vegas), gay marriages based on love are a threat to marriage and "the family".

The religious in this nation would have us believe that gay marriage should be illegal because homosexuality is wrong. Those same religious citizens demand that the US sanction such nations as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran because their governments force religious (either atheist or Muslim) beliefs and values on Christian minorities. Well I hate to break it to them, but the belief that homosexuality is "wrong" is a religious one, not a scientific one. Science, Medicine, Psychology and Government no longer hold that homosexuality is a choice nor that it is immoral or criminal. The fact that its ok for the religious in this nation to force their religious beliefs on minorities here is hypocricy at its best.

The Democrats in this country advocate "Civil Unions" in place of same sex marriages. This is not equality, this is an example of "seperate but equal" which was soundly defeated in the Supreme Court Decision "Brown vs. Board of Education" in 1954.

Marriage is a religious institution. It has no place in government whatsoever. Federal and State governments should ONLY administer and sell licenses for Civil Unions, and should not administer marriage in any way shape or form. They should not offer any benefits to those participating in a religious tradition, either. Any benefits available must be available to all, and therefore must be based on Civil Unions. Those wishing to get married should seek endorsement from their respective religious institutions. If one respective church would advocate gay marriage, that is no business of another church.

This is further proof that separation of church and state in this nation needs to be more strictly adhered to. The founders of our nation wanted to make sure that religious minorities were protected from the religious majority meddling in government. If current "religious right" fundamentalist Christians' involvement in government isn't an example of that fear in action, then I dont know what is.
Excellent post. Thank you.

Since this issue was first raised, I have advocated that ALL unions should be civil unions for tax, estate, and other legal purposes. The state-issued marriage license should be for establishing a civil union for the purpose of forming a household, and it should be available to ALL consenting adults. I see no reason why marriage cannot be reserved as an optional religious ritual designed to bless a union, but it should have no bearing at all on whether the couple is eligible for the legal benefits of householding.

All I know is that somewhat cat-like Anime girls turn me on for some reason.

[/threadjack]

Meow... ;)

Sorry, my heart belongs to another. But thanks. ;)

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.


Well, the neo-cons and their lackies the Christian-Coalition and Fundies are merely protecting their rights as well....

Their right to dictate the personal affairs of others.

They may say otherwise, and come up with rather idiotic reasons, but that is their ultimate goal in life.... (mostly because they themselves lack one).

Sorry, my heart belongs to another. But thanks. ;)

You're not a vaguely cat-like Anime girl though, you just use one in your sig. So, I dunno what you're thanking me for.

You're not a vaguely cat-like Anime girl though, you just use one in your sig. So, I dunno what you're thanking me for.

My mistake. *shrug*

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.

Your country will inevitably recognize it, because it is the natural course of the precepts upon which the country was founded... I realized this some time ago... And realized then, that no longer was it my duty to oppose homosexual marriage, but my duty to ensure that it was enshrined... Because to do anything else would be to betray the principles by which this country was founded.... You may not see it yet, but it is merely your personal bias blinding you from rationalizing the full extent of our rights and responsibilities both enumerated and non-enumerated.... Principally, you're no patriot, you're a traitor.

Your country will inevitably recognize it, because it is the natural course of the precepts upon which the country was founded... I realized this some time ago... And realized then, that no longer was it my duty to oppose homosexual marriage, but my duty to ensure that it was enshrined... Because to do anything else would be to betray the principles by which this country was founded.... You may not see it yet, but it is merely your personal bias blinding you from rationalizing the full extent of our rights and responsibilities both enumerated and non-enumerated.... Principally, you're no patriot, you're a traitor.
Harsh, but it needed saying. Traitor is a bit strong at this point for me, but on the rest, I concur.

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.

1. civil union == marriage... Either you remove marriage, or you keep it. Either heterosexuals and homosexuals both get marriage, or both of them get civil unions. Your ignorant repetition of this irrationalism needs to end... The law must refer to both unions under the same terminology, simply because anything else is doomed to failure under established precedent.

2. Skin color is a part of ones "character", as is sexual prefference.... As is their language, their dialect, their accent, what type of hair they have, their disposition, how they walk, what clothes they like to wear, where they like to vacation, what they do for fun, particular foods they are fond of, the books they like the most, etc.... Any element used to differentiate a person is their "character" (since you seem so hell bent on preserving the definition of words).

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.

Yes it is, the same touchy-feely crapola you yourself use to justify the differentiation of "Civil union" and "marriage"....

There's always next year. It'll be back, but right now there are more important things...

There's always next year. It'll be back, but right now there are more important things...

Try next month. The House has their own version comming up....

You have the right to an opinion, I just think you're wrong.

You are basically saying that he has the right to hold his opinion (the opinion that every person should enjoy equal rights under the law), while saying you disagree with that opinion (and thus say that not all persons should enjoy equal rights under the law)...

This is not surprising, in my observation of your position on this board, I have already determined that you're not capable of developing a rational stance on this issue... Rather this stance is based upon ingrained feelings which have been passed in your raising based upon moral codes which are otherwise defunct in your character... In other words, you're whole position is based on driving emotions with no logical or rational throught...... You should do well in the Republic Party.

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 don't care if they "don't want it", their opinion should not matter in this case anymore than their opinion on whether a black person should marry a white person....

And no, you're not a bunch of "hicks" for thinking that, as I've known many hicks myself, and I would never degrade them by lumping your type in with them.

What sickens me the most about the republican position is that they actually think gay marraige is somehow a threat to them, personally. Like somehow government sanction would destroy their religious tradition. Nobody said churches have to accept gay marraige just because the government does.

What's even more sickening is the hypocrisy. Republicans used to be the states rights party, and now they want to sign a bill taking away states' rights to legalize gay marriage?

When arguing abortion, they argue against Roe v Wade based on states' rights, saying states should be able to illegalize aboriton, because it fits their side. But when states are doing something they don't like, all the sudden they don't care about states rights.

Listening to a republican debate is like listening to 'Okie from Myskokee' by Merle Haggard. Except, they're being serious.

I have no respect for anybody who claims that their own heterosexual marraige is directly threatened by gay marraige. The republicans think they have a right to micromanage other peoples' lives and other peoples' communities. States' rights party indeed.

.
And no, you're not a bunch of "hicks" for thinking that, as I've known many hicks myself, and I would never degrade them by lumping your type in with them.
Ouch!

I think homosexuality is disgusting, over 50% of America agrees with me.

Yes, and 4 out of 5 americans preffer Pepsi over Coke (while Coke grosses 42% more in US sales than Pepsi)...

I think the Pollwatchers would be shocked if it were actually left up to Americans as to how we would decide on a singular issue such as this.

Of course, it does not matter, as this is not an issue that should be decided by majority vote.

Try next month. The House has their own version comming up....

Well, there's hope after all, but I still will say Gay marriage isn't a pressing issue yet.

:headbang:

Well, there's hope after all, but I still will say Gay marriage isn't a pressing issue yet.

:headbang:
It's pressing in this sense--if you don't get it now, you won't get it at all, because the trend favors recognition of same sex marriage. The younger the group polled, the higher the approval.

Oh, I'm discriminatory, huh?

Well, I wish to limit the rights of murderers, guess that makes me discriminatory against them, right.

I wish to limit the rights of criminals, damn I'm a bigot, huh?

I think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong. I don't call for violence against gays, I just don't want them getting married.

Well, what you "feel" (not think, as you have not provided any rational points) does not matter here...

A murder and a "Criminal" exist in their class for their crimes, that is crimes defined by the law commited by them upon the person or property of another... Your opposition to the homosexuals is based on irrational hatred and dislike of them, not upon reason, or any logical faculty, and not codified into any form which can be conveyed as a defense of your position before the law or courts; thus your position, as all other similar ones in the past; is doomed to failure, not possessing a firm foundation to stand upon against the rational operation of the system towards the epansion of rights equally to all.

Forgive me if this has been brought up already. I have never understood why a marriage contract is treated, from a legal standpoint, any differently than any other contract. Leaving religion completely out of the equation (easy for an athiest like me) how does a marriage contract differ? If it does not differ on a legal basis, why is it allowed to be discriminatory?

Also, to the "if you allow gay marriage, next you'll have a guy trying to marry a sheep" people - last I heard, animals could not enter into contracts. Which is just another reason that argument is blantantly ignorant.

While I agree it should be legal, don't think that once it IS legal, the officiator can just refuse to perform. If he's permitted by the state/county/locality to perform a wedding ceremony, then the state might very well take the authority to compel a person to perform the ceremony.

Think it won't happen? Just ask the pharmacists who, because they are licensed by the state, are compelled to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or emergency contraception even though they find such pills immoral.

May or may not happen that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

I think you are wrong here. I do because Catholic priests can now refuse to marry two people because one is divorced but has not had the former marriage anulled in the Church. Still, the couple could be married civily or by a priest of another religion. Therefore, I do not think all officiators would be forced to perform a wedding ceremony, though I should think certainly judges, justice of the peace, etc would have to perform the ceremony.

You know what? Boo fucking hoo. You think youre being persecuted? Stop persecuting gays. You know that whole do unto others thing? Yeah looks like what goes around comes around.

Ehhh, US Christians know little to nothing about persecution (and I myself am a US Christian, and thus speak from experience on this issue); their definition of "persecution" is not being able to get their way in all cases (including those cases where their way involves involuntary involving others in their activities)... And this much includes the "gay-marriage" issue... I, and I know of other Christians who realize that it is a pointless issue... That under the system of law which our forefathers setup to protect our rights and beliefs, that we must extend these identical ones to others in our society... By doing so we ensure the capacity of our own speech and ability to preach and thus fulfill Christ's command to us to preach His word to the world.... These Fundies, and their Dominionistic kinfolk have opted rather to usurp earhtly power to attempt to spread "christianity" by force of rule, law or order as they see fit, though they ignore the great commission that was given to the Church [and thus I do not consider them Christians, since they choose to spread by manners that were given by Christ]... Thus the protection of Muslim's rights, the protection of homosexual rights, and all such like are an extention of the protection of my own rights as a Christian... If I fail in my duty to protect my fellow American's rights; then I doom my own rights... As Thomas Paine said in the quote in my Sig.... If I start attempting to define the civil law by religious morality, and start legislating religious morality, to what extent shall it reach but to the determination whereby someone else's particular morality may be used at issue to damage my own rights to practice.

Not much over 250 years ago, these same people who are now pushing to define marriage under the dictates of their own religion were persecuted by their own colonial government for as little an issue as not being baptised in the proper mode, or failing to take communion at a particular building... And yet it is this very form they wish to return to... and walk blindly back to.

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

And how, exactly, do we fucking faggots freak out differently from fucking breeders? Personally, when I 'freak out,' I have this dizzying, euphoric surge of rage that's almost intoxicating, and makes me want to douse people in lighter fluid, set them on fire, and beat their asses with a baseball bat while they burn. But I'm an exceptionally angry person, largely because scarcely a day goes by that I don't hear about some rotten goddamned things that some powerful straight people are doing to gay people every goddamned day-- for instance, still equating 'gay' to 'bad' or 'inferior,' by still using 'fag' as a pejorative. Or like trying to pass laws that make it the official policy of a government that tax-paying law-abiding woman-fucking man is superior to, and has more (gee, sounds like 'special') rights than tax-paying law-abiding man-fucking man. Or like self-righteous hypocritical 'Christians' acting without compassion, denying the equal humanity of gay people by treating them as objects to be legislated against instead of self-actuating subjects, contrary to the teachings of the guy they claim to hold up as their role-model. That kinda crap makes some of us want to 'freak out' and string up oppressive motherfuckers like pinatas.

'Fag' ought to be a badge of honour; given the crap a lot of gay people take, surviving being a 'fag' takes more than the people who use it as an insult will ever have in them. If the people who toss it around with so much contempt were on the receiving end of that kind of hatred, they'd probably die in droves, like little bitches, with a razor in a bathtub or with a stomach full of pills.

Don't shoot until you can see the red of their necks!

:sniper: :headbang:

I believe I've heard before, that the loudest most outspoken homophobes are acting outwardly in reaction to their own fears and self loathing about insecurities regarding their own sexual feelings and urges. Something about a (quite high) percentage of vocal homophobes being closeted or repressed homosexuals or bisexuals themselves. Does anyone have any insight or information on this? Perhaps our young friend deserves our compassion and support as he deals with what might very possibly be a world-shattering struggle between his conservative religious upbringing and his unsettling attraction to other young men.

This sort of outburst, frustration, and utter dependence on tradition rather than science, psychology, or medicine (within his arguments) could be the sort of indicator that many people (caught up in their own arguments) tend to miss. It could be a cry for help as he incessently tries to distance himself from homosexuals by attempting to be the "loudest objector".

Just a thought. I don't know how to "private message" through this, or if it is possible, but I'd be more than happy to address this topic with our young friend if desired.

I believe I've heard before, that the loudest most outspoken homophobes are acting outwardly in reaction to their own fears and self loathing about insecurities regarding their own sexual feelings and urges. Something about a (quite high) percentage of vocal homophobes being closeted or repressed homosexuals or bisexuals themselves. Does anyone have any insight or information on this? Perhaps our young friend deserves our compassion and support as he deals with what might very possibly be a world-shattering struggle between his conservative religious upbringing and his unsettling attraction to other young men.

This sort of outburst, frustration, and utter dependence on tradition rather than science, psychology, or medicine (within his arguments) could be the sort of indicator that many people (caught up in their own arguments) tend to miss. It could be a cry for help as he incessently tries to distance himself from homosexuals by attempting to be the "loudest objector".

Just a thought. I don't know how to "private message" through this, or if it is possible, but I'd be more than happy to address this topic with our young friend if desired.

Hrm, compassion's nice and all, but that still sounds like coddling Uncle Tom. When there's a group of people targeting you and people like you-- on the basis of some arbitrary characteristic of their choosing-- for persocution and even death, to take to heart the oppressor's side rather than standing with your fellows is a betrayal. It's cowardly. To hide or deny that you share the despised trait, so that you can cast your lot in with people who would marginalise or kill you for it, is to be of the oppressors. And an oppressor is an oppressor is an oppressor. Going soft on the ones who are 'just sympathisers' or 'just saving their own skin' is like tacitly giving permission for people of your own kind to denegrate you, when you shouldn't be allowing anyone to-- least of all the most cowardly of your own kind. If one is afraid to be in the weaker-looking camp then fine, stay out of the fight. But to choose to be a traitor? Makes 'em a legitimate target for any course of action taken by the oppressed to weaken, undermine, and overthrow the oppressors.

If the dark day ever comes that they're rounding us up for slavery or deathcamps, and some closet-case comes crawling into my guerilla resistence cell's camp spewing 'their' propaganda, I'd tell him to either deprogram that shit pronto if he wanted shelter among us, or to run back to his masters and be ready to be treated like any other enemy zealot in the morning. Sometimes there's no room for crass, opportunistic half-loyalties, you have to make a choice on where to stand.

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.

Without critising your post, I offer no opinion on the points raised.
As I see it, it is a straightforward Constitutional issue.
Any federal Act that sets norms for the States to adhere to with regards to marriage contravenes the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Hrm, compassion's nice and all, but that still sounds like coddling Uncle Tom. When there's a group of people targeting you and people like you-- on the basis of some arbitrary characteristic of their choosing-- for persocution and even death, to take to heart the oppressor's side rather than standing with your fellows is a betrayal. It's cowardly. To hide or deny that you share the despised trait, so that you can cast your lot in with people who would marginalise or kill you for it, is to be of the oppressors. And an oppressor is an oppressor is an oppressor. Going soft on the ones who are 'just sympathisers' or 'just saving their own skin' is like tacitly giving permission for people of your own kind to denegrate you, when you shouldn't be allowing anyone to-- least of all the most cowardly of your own kind. If one is afraid to be in the weaker-looking camp then fine, stay out of the fight. But to choose to be a traitor? Makes 'em a legitimate target for any course of action taken by the oppressed to weaken, undermine, and overthrow the oppressors.

I am going to lead this with I agree with you most of the time. But, I have to partially disagree with you here. There are just some people in this world that need to be educated (if they are willing to listen) in order to see our point of view.

Human beings in general are craven, cowardly or inclined not to like direct confrontation, the usual reaction to such fear is to internalize and hide the fear ,especially males who are generally raised not to show emotion, to hide fear and the whole "macho" thing, you mix this heady brew with being gay, and you get a seriously fucked up guy who might go in any of three directions; they may work it out for themselves and be well adjusted, they may go extremely macho and be a gay basher, or they may go dead opposite and be a screaming queen.

This is horribly oversimplified, but is what I faced in a nutshell. It took me until age 30 to be open with myself about my sexuality, this after knowing at age 12 that I was attracted to my own sex. I did not go to either extreme, but it took me a long while to get where I am today. Twelve years later, I am quite well adjusted and happy. But I was miserable as hell for a lot of years.


If the dark day ever comes that they're rounding us up for slavery or deathcamps, and some closet-case comes crawling into my guerilla resistence cell's camp spewing 'their' propaganda, I'd tell him to either deprogram that shit pronto if he wanted shelter among us, or to run back to his masters and be ready to be treated like any other enemy zealot in the morning. Sometimes there's no room for crass, opportunistic half-loyalties, you have to make a choice on where to stand.

They already did round us up for death camps. The Nazis exterminated homosexuals at a rate only exceeded by the Jews. So you could say that us queers were number two on Hitler's hit parade. That's where that cute little upside down pink triangle comes from. Gay prisoners were marked with that symbol in the concentration camps.

I won't give one inch in my determination for us to gain our equality. But we best be prepared for the shock of the fact that even when we gain our legal equality, we will still face the prejudice. Women understand it, blacks live with it daily to this day near on 40 years later (in the US), and soon it will be our turn.

Just because we gain legal equality does not mean that the social change will come overnight. Women FINALLY gained the right to vote about 90 years ago in the United States, it's taken that long for women to see the prejudice die down to a manageable level, I expect it will take African-Americans about the same amount of time, our turn is coming shortly. I would hope that we would be spared the burden of the long wait...but human beings aren't made that way. It will have to be "bred" out of the species by a long period of adjustment.

I'm not apologizing for it, I'm just stating the cold, hard facts.

I don't care if they "don't want it", their opinion should not matter in this case anymore than their opinion on whether a black person should marry a white person....

And no, you're not a bunch of "hicks" for thinking that, as I've known many hicks myself, and I would never degrade them by lumping your type in with them.
No kidding I may be a northerner and a comp geek

But I was also raised on the farm own a truck and a muddin jeep and spend the weekends trying to pull people out of sandpits and mudholes

I am a "hick" by most deffinitions, but yet some of us evolved

I am going to lead this with I agree with you most of the time. But, I have to partially disagree with you here. There are just some people in this world that need to be educated (if they are willing to listen) in order to see our point of view.

Human beings in general are craven, cowardly or inclined not to like direct confrontation, the usual reaction to such fear is to internalize and hide the fear ,especially males who are generally raised not to show emotion, to hide fear and the whole "macho" thing, you mix this heady brew with being gay, and you get a seriously fucked up guy who might go in any of three directions; they may work it out for themselves and be well adjusted, they may go extremely macho and be a gay basher, or they may go dead opposite and be a screaming queen.

And if they become a gay basher, they are just as bad as any straight gay-basher. Secretly belonging to the group that you're helping to victimise doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your acts. If a gay person gets their head filled with heterosexist crap and works against the good of other gay people, or if they play along with a gay-hating agenda because they're afraid to stand up to it, they're still guilty of practicing hateful acts


They already did round us up for death camps. The Nazis exterminated homosexuals at a rate only exceeded by the Jews. So you could say that us queers were number two on Hitler's hit parade. That's where that cute little upside down pink triangle comes from. Gay prisoners were marked with that symbol in the concentration camps.

Yah, I'm well versed in those parts of our history, and that's why I have concern about a repeat of history. I see how aggressive the gay-haters are getting, more and more so as we increasingly stand up for ourselves and work towards equality-- which, of course, they don't want us to have because they feel it would take them down off their pedastal. Every step forward, they feel is a step 'into their faces,' and while I hope otherwise I can't help but partly expect the day when they solidify power-- by hook or by crook-- and announce that they're shipping us all off to 'ex-gay' camps for our own good, and those they can't 'cure' start getting marched into gas chambers. That day ever comes (or as you point out-- comes again), when they 'come out' about their desire to literally exterminate us-- when they declare open war on us as a group and try to strip away all of our human rights-- I say we'd be well within our remaining animal rights to fight. Fight by any means necessary to survive, and to punish anyone who sides with their hateful ideology. Pacifism is noble and all, but if they're murdering you out of hatred then you're going to be wiped out and you'll have gone down without a fight. Better to make them regret the injustice that they do by excising a human cost. And getting back to the original point-- if you spare the gay people who are siding with them, then they'll just make sure the camps are run by the sympathisers. They'll use our own craven brothers and sisters as human shields while not even seeing them as human beings. Anyone who does the work of oppression is an oppressor, and deserves the same level of retaliation.

There will be so softcore militarism here.

Without critising your post, I offer no opinion on the points raised.
As I see it, it is a straightforward Constitutional issue.
Any federal Act that sets norms for the States to adhere to with regards to marriage contravenes the 9th and 10th Amendments.
That's certainly another way of attacking DOMA. The only problem thus far has been standing. There are a couple of cases working their way up the chain I believe, and it'll hit the Supremes eventually--too big an issue not to get there, especially since you're liable to have conflicting opinions (the 9th is the most likely to overturn and the 4th to uphold). What happens there is anyone's guess. Scalia, Alito and Thomas are definite to uphold DOMA. Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens are pretty likely to overturn. I have no idea what Roberts will do, though I lean toward upholding, and Kennedy wrote the opinion in Lawrence which set the framework for this very thing. Scalia said as much in his dissent.

It wouldn't surprise me if, once this got to SCOTUS, they got cold feet and looked for a way to weasel out of it--bold moves are rare for any SCOTUS. But it would be nice to see it be overturned. Then the political battle will really be joined.

Nothing beats the glow of a 30 Ton AMEX blast as it rains fundytards, thats all ways been my motto, if they attack show no mercy, I have all ways enjoyed the blitzkrieg and R.P.Gs.

Quite frankly I'm surprised more gay body builders AREN'T"T plastering thoughs idiots on the wall.

Gay Basher "I'm better then you because I'm not gay"
Gay guy "*Splat* then how come my fist just relocated the shit in your head if you're so much better?"

I say attack back with full force and no mercy, thats why I have no sympathy for the Jews in Germany, they made no attempt to fight back, some did, the rest was just natural selection.

Nothing beats the glow of a 30 Ton AMEX blast as it rains fundytards, thats all ways been my motto, if they attack show no mercy, I have all ways enjoyed the blitzkrieg and R.P.Gs.

Quite frankly I'm surprised more gay body builders AREN'T"T plastering thoughs idiots on the wall.

Gay Basher "I'm better then you because I'm not gay"
Gay guy "*Splat* then how come my fist just relocated the shit in your head if you're so much better?"

I say attack back with full force and no mercy, thats why I have no sympathy for the Jews in Germany, they made no attempt to fight back, some did, the rest was just natural selection.

The Holocaust was Natural Selection?

...

Yeah. That's a new one.

when they just surrender with out fighting and had a good idea what was happening? yes.

If I where one of then I'd be charging any soldier with a rock if thats all I had.

when they just surrender with out fighting and had a good idea what was happening? yes.

If I where one of then I'd be charging any soldier with a rock if thats all I had.

Many did flee to other nations - people like Einstein. Many did fight their oppressors at great cost - see the Warsaw Uprising. Those who chose to remain tried to have faith in their government despite restrictions, and couldn't believe the tales of death camps and the like. Plus, the majority were unarmed people captured by armed soldiers. Not much of a way to fight back.

when they just surrender with out fighting and had a good idea what was happening? yes.

If I where one of then I'd be charging any soldier with a rock if thats all I had.
And you would have rapidy been selected out of the gene pool.

Exactly I have sympathy for thoughs who fight, thoughs who did not I can not feel sorry for, they obviously where to weak to care for them selves, faith is a disease in my books, and if one relies on that and not sense then they got what they earned. I go by the same thing with people actions here, all talk no action.

"Oh look at thoughs people lets pray for them to be help" = totally fucking stupid idiots

"Oh jee look, we're being rounded up to be slaughtered, lets just give up" ^ same answer

"Oh jee look thoughs people need help, lets go and help them" = *Ding ding* we have a winer!

"Oh jee they're rounding us up to kill us, this fucking sucks, well time to blow some shit up" = Winners

Do you see how that works?

FYI No I'd throw the rock personally, and I'd do it to a guard carrying an SG44 then continue with assistance to build momentum, I have all ways been very good at combat in that fashion, either way I am 100% dead only difference is I attempted to survive rather then dying like a pathetic failure, when cornered only the lame die lying down.

That though is all ways the last resort, i is best to never have the corners built in the first place, but this is what your religious Reich is doing, they are trying to build a corner for them selves and every one ells, and this must be stopped hope fully it is by mutual agreement, second by peace and at worst by war (civil).

Exactly I have sympathy for thoughs who fight, thoughs who did not I can not feel sorry for, they obviously where to weak to care for them selves, faith is a disease in my books, and if one relies on that and not sense then they got what they earned. I go by the same thing with people actions here, all talk no action.

"Oh look at thoughs people lets pray for them to be help" = totally fucking stupid idiots

"Oh jee look, we're being rounded up to be slaughtered, lets just give up" ^ same answer

"Oh jee look thoughs people need help, lets go and help them" = *Ding ding* we have a winer!

"Oh jee they're rounding us up to kill us, this fucking sucks, well time to blow some shit up" = Winners

Do you see how that works?

FYI No I'd throw the rock personally, and I'd do it to a guard carrying an SG44 then continue with assistance to build momentum, I have all ways been very good at combat in that fashion, either way I am 100% dead only difference is I attempted to survive rather then dying like a pathetic failure, when cornered only the lame die lying down.

So sayeth a brave fighting man of the 101st Keyboard Rangers.

So sayeth a brave fighting man of the 101st Keyboard Rangers.

lol, that's cute.

If that where the case I would have allot less scars, whether the battle was literally at home or ells where we all have to survive.

I think you are wrong here. I do because Catholic priests can now refuse to marry two people because one is divorced but has not had the former marriage anulled in the Church. Still, the couple could be married civily or by a priest of another religion. Therefore, I do not think all officiators would be forced to perform a wedding ceremony, though I should think certainly judges, justice of the peace, etc would have to perform the ceremony.

I very well could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. The government obviously can't compel a religion to perform a religious ceremony. But not all marriages are religious in nature -- we lose the distinction in America because we often perform the religious ceremony at the same time we "sign" the civil union "contract."

A proposed solution? Quit tying state and federal benefits to marriage. Tie them instead to civil unions. Don't let the state even recognize (legally) the concept of marriage. Homosexual couples can then enjoy the same state benefits as a heterosexual couple in civil union, but if the state refuses to acknowledge a gay marriage it's only because the state refuses to acknowledge any marriage.

May work, may not. Just a thought.

lol, that's cute.

If that where the case I would have allot less scars, whether the battle was literally at home or ells where we all have to survive.

Skateboarding doesn't count.

What is Wrong with Communism ?

It exist ?

bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Then the whole senate is made of bigots!
I know this was from a while ago, but I really had to post this.

I very well could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. The government obviously can't compel a religion to perform a religious ceremony. But not all marriages are religious in nature -- we lose the distinction in America because we often perform the religious ceremony at the same time we "sign" the civil union "contract."

A proposed solution? Quit tying state and federal benefits to marriage. Tie them instead to civil unions. Don't let the state even recognize (legally) the concept of marriage. Homosexual couples can then enjoy the same state benefits as a heterosexual couple in civil union, but if the state refuses to acknowledge a gay marriage it's only because the state refuses to acknowledge any marriage.

May work, may not. Just a thought.
Now I'll go into the debate, and say that noone really gets what they want in your solution.
The gay marriage people want their marriages to be called marriages. If they didn't this debate would be almost over, because most of the states have some kind of civil union for gay people, and they generally ignore it.
The anti-gay marriage people want gays to have no means of any kind of marriage at all, and so don't want civil unions either.

Now I'll go into the debate, and say that noone really gets what they want in your solution.
The gay marriage people want their marriages to be called marriages. If they didn't this debate would be almost over, because most of the states have some kind of civil union for gay people, and they generally ignore it.
The anti-gay marriage people want gays to have no means of any kind of marriage at all, and so don't want civil unions either.

And that's indicative of the unfortunate state of affairs in United States-ian politics today -- a compromise is seen as a loss for both sides instead of a partial victory for each side. It can't exist that any side gets its way on this issue, but if anyone proposes something less than 100% of what's demanded, it's tantamount to giving 0%. Maybe I'll give up and move my family to New Zealand. Sheep don't fight like this.

Sheep don't fight like this.

You've obviously never snuck up on one.

You've obviously never snuck up on one.

:) Fair enough.

I think you are wrong here. I do because Catholic priests can now refuse to marry two people because one is divorced but has not had the former marriage anulled in the Church. Still, the couple could be married civily or by a priest of another religion. Therefore, I do not think all officiators would be forced to perform a wedding ceremony, though I should think certainly judges, justice of the peace, etc would have to perform the ceremony.

Or, you could (as people I have known have done) ask different Catholic priests until they found one willing to either approve the annulment or perform the ceremony.

But no, the government could not FORCE an officiant of a religion to perform an act that is against the morals of that religion.

So sayeth a brave fighting man of the 101st Keyboard Rangers.

Bad Gymoor. You made me laugh while drinking my coffee!

Well I saw something in Time today that I think several of you will get a kick out of.

Letters to the Editor:
I dont see why everyone is putting up a big stink about gay marriage. I mean come on, our forefathers ran around in wigs tights and silk capris.

when they just surrender with out fighting and had a good idea what was happening? yes.

If I where one of then I'd be charging any soldier with a rock if thats all I had.

It pains me to say this, but life is a whole lot more complicated than that simple scenario. While Gay Street and I are on the same team, we see things differently by shades.

I do not advocate defense by "All Means Available" until I am backed into a corner. Then I'm just as vicious, if not more so than the average guy. I am not going to expend my life needlessly when I can do so much more damage subtly while I live. Throwing yourself on your sword is all well and good when you have no other option, but while I'm breathing I have my mind and my experience behind me to make life extraordinarily miserable for my oppressors.

The army calls it "assymetrical warfare," it used to be known as "Guerilla" or "Irregular Warfare."

There are lots of guys like me. Retired military and gay. Think about those resources for a moment.

because most of the states have some kind of civil union for gay people, and they generally ignore it.

Untrue. Check www.hrc.org Only 2 states have civil unions. Vermont and Connecticut. 3 other states and the District of Columbia offer the same status to unmarried same sex couples as unmarried heterosexual couples (Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey). California offers 'similar' rights to unmarried same sex couples as unmarried heterosexual couples. Thats a total of 1 State allowing marriage (Massachusetts) and 2 offering Civil Unions, with 4 other states and DC offering something else that is recognized in any way shape or form.

That leaves 43 states and 4 territories in this country which offer no recognition whatsoever to same sex couples.

Untrue. Check www.hrc.org Only 2 states have civil unions. Vermont and Connecticut. 3 other states and the District of Columbia offer the same status to unmarried same sex couples as unmarried heterosexual couples (Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey). California offers 'similar' rights to unmarried same sex couples as unmarried heterosexual couples. Thats a total of 1 State allowing marriage (Massachusetts) and 2 offering Civil Unions, with 4 other states and DC offering something else that is recognized in any way shape or form.

That leaves 43 states and 4 territories in this country which offer no recognition whatsoever to same sex couples.
About the only thing I can imagine Sheni is talking about is the ability for same sex couples to enter into a series of complex (and expensive, unless you're a lawyer and can draft them yourself) set of contracts that will vaguely approximate some of the benefits that marriage confers automatically. But that's really being generous.

To which I reply, if Kennedy isn't saying it, I am. Yes--over half the US Senate is a crew of bigots.
I can't believe that half the Senate voted to change your nation's founding document over such a trivial issue.

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.
That's not a moral issue any more than is the issue of me thinking eggs are disgusting. Shouldn't have any effect on the law.

Voting to ban gay marriage is the only Christian thing to do; we are protecting them from sinning even more by destroying holy matrimony.
Where's the campaign to ban divorce? Jesus spoke against that much more openly than he ever spoke against homosexuality. (Not that banning SSM will actually do anything to prevent the existence of homosexuality.)

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.
I wonder why Americans are so far behind the civilised world on this one.

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.
I don't think that homosexual marriage is right. I just don't think that it's harmful to society, so there is no reason to ban it in a modern society.

You should really know why you think what you do. To vote based on emotion is childish.

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.
In the more liberal parts of Europe, homosexuality is not plastered everywhere, because people don't have a "forbidden fruit" fascination with it like Americans do. The more you marginalise gays, the more attention they will draw.

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.
Don't get your hopes up. The Christian Right failed to get interracial marriage banned in the 1960s and they will fail now.

We're not hicks, we just have standards. I'm not opposed to civil unions, I'm opposed to gay marriage.
Your standards of freedom and equality are lower than those of Massachusetts.

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.
So you agree with every law in existence?

In any case, now you know how anti-war Americans feel every day.

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,"
Liberals feel the same way. They want to preserve America and her traditions of freedom. In any case, WTF does 9/11 have to do with same-sex marriage?

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.
Marriage has not been that way for thousands of years, and it is not ready to be mutilated. It is ready to be improved.

Is divorce not a mutilation of marriage? Why don't you want to ban that?

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 suppose you always end up losing an argument when you have nothing but your "feelings" to back up your point.

is why the republicans and the idiot in chief suddenly ~after 2 years of not doing a thing regarding a federal gay marriage ban~ suddenly felt it so neccessary to start up this dead issue again!!! And the real answer is because they are so low on support from even their most traditional christian conservative base that they had to be seen to be doing SOMETHING..

And now that it has failed they can turn around and blame the democrats to the the fundies while still blaming us LGBT folk for the downfall of society as we know it..

But then again it's kinda like calling fighting illegal immigration fighting terrorism without ever having produced ONE Mexican terrorist, cos if they didn't call it fighting terrorism it'd be blatent racism same as the cheap shot at getting yet another law written banning gay marriage if not called defending the family would simply be homophobia...

And this dramatic grandstanding at the tax payers expense is even more ridiculous in some states like Missouri where we have not one but TWO laws banning gay marriage.

Come on people there are WAY more important issues that the idiot in chief and those who think for him should be discussing.. don't let them snow you

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,
Then join a church that doesn't wed homosexuals!

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's irrational, and the fact that you're legislating emotion makes you a hick.

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.
Thanks for the tip, McCarthy!

Wow, I'm a teen, and I think you're a dumbass! If teens do think that, they'll change, because teens are nieve.
You don';t even know why you believe what you believe. In the next ten years your intellect will expand exponentially. You'll question everything and probably become more liberal. This social conservatism is illogical and frankly stupid.

I think homosexuality is disgusting, over 50% of America agrees with me.
How do you know that? If it's true, then that's your and their right. But if they think that their irrational belief must be legislated on issues that don't affect them, then they are anti-Americans.

Also, I get frickin tired of people calling me a bigot and a fascist just because I have different standards than them.
You haven't produced a single logical point. Please do so and stop whining.

Here, you want to know what I honestly think? Fuck you.
Careful, he's a Texan. He might return the compliment at 800mph.

That's your way of defending liberalism, I'm a bigot for limiting people's rights.
America didn't make a name for itself by restricting civil rights!

Oh, I'm discriminatory, huh?

Well, I wish to limit the rights of murderers, guess that makes me discriminatory against them, right.

I wish to limit the rights of criminals, damn I'm a bigot, huh?

I think being gay is disgusting, stupid, weird, and wrong. I don't call for violence against gays, I just don't want them getting married.
Except that there are rational reasons for limiting the rights of criminals, and not of gays.

Well, there's hope after all, but I still will say Gay marriage isn't a pressing issue yet.

:headbang:
The desire to take same sex marriage out of states' hands is hardly fitting with your "small government" principles.

Francis St - kills threads dead.

Francis St - kills threads dead.
Francis beats dead threads...

Francis St - kills threads dead.

No, thread was dead about two weeks before you tried to ressurect it. You failed, and you suck.

The desire to take same sex marriage out of states' hands is hardly fitting with your "small government" principles.
Republicans support states rights, as long as states don't actually exercise those rights in any way the Republicans disapprove of.

(pats Francis Street in a comradely way, on the shoulder)

Good job.

And that's indicative of the unfortunate state of affairs in United States-ian politics today -- a compromise is seen as a loss for both sides instead of a partial victory for each side. It can't exist that any side gets its way on this issue, but if anyone proposes something less than 100% of what's demanded, it's tantamount to giving 0%.
The problem is, in some cases there isn't a way to compromise.

As an example, how do we form a "compromise" between people who think black people shouldn't have equal legal rights, and people who do? Either black people are equal under the law, or they're not. There's no way to have them be "partly equal" under the law. Same goes for gay rights; either gay people are full citizens of the United States, and are entitled to the same legal rights and protections as everybody else, or they aren't. You can't have gay people be "partly equal" to straight people.

The problem is, in some cases there isn't a way to compromise.

As an example, how do we form a "compromise" between people who think black people shouldn't have equal legal rights, and people who do? Either black people are equal under the law, or they're not. There's no way to have them be "partly equal" under the law. Same goes for gay rights; either gay people are full citizens of the United States, and are entitled to the same legal rights and protections as everybody else, or they aren't. You can't have gay people be "partly equal" to straight people.
To quote George Orwell: "We're all equal, but some of us are more equal than the others"

Francis beats dead threads...
Oh, at the time I didn't realise that the thread had been dead for a few days.

To quote George Orwell: "We're all equal, but some of us are more equal than the others"
Pretty much, yeah. :)

I'm honestly a bit sick of being told that I need to "compromise" on issues of civil rights. I'm supposed to "compromise" on the subject of whether or not my body belongs to me. I'm supposed to "compromise" on whether or not somebody else's religious beliefs trump my own. I'm supposed to "compromise" on whether or not I have the right to pick who I marry.

Screw all that noise. There are some subjects on which we should not accept compromise. We don't ask Jews to compromise on the subject of whether or not they should be wiped out like vermin. We don't ask black people to compromise on whether or not they get to count as 3/5ths of a person. But, for some reason, we still expect women and gays to be willing to settle for partial human status, and to be thankful for it.

They were voting on an amendment ...therefore it would be constitutional.

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!

They were voting on an amendment ...therefore it would be constitutional.

Someone needs to brush up on their definition of constitutional.

Someone needs to brush up on their definition of constitutional.
Actually, if an Amendment is successfully adopted and ratified, it is by definition Constitutional, and its content supersedes the content of previous Amendments with which it may conflict.

Pretty much, yeah. :)

I'm honestly a bit sick of being told that I need to "compromise" on issues of civil rights. I'm supposed to "compromise" on the subject of whether or not my body belongs to me. I'm supposed to "compromise" on whether or not somebody else's religious beliefs trump my own. I'm supposed to "compromise" on whether or not I have the right to pick who I marry.

Screw all that noise. There are some subjects on which we should not accept compromise. We don't ask Jews to compromise on the subject of whether or not they should be wiped out like vermin. We don't ask black people to compromise on whether or not they get to count as 3/5ths of a person. But, for some reason, we still expect women and gays to be willing to settle for partial human status, and to be thankful for it.
Agreed. Civil rights are not a subject on which we can afford to compromise. A compromise on equality sets a dangerous precedent, and opens a slippery slope. It can easily lead to tyranny by the majority.

Agreed. Civil rights are not a subject on which we can afford to compromise. A compromise on equality sets a dangerous precedent, and opens a slippery slope. It can easily lead to tyranny by the majority.
Whenever I hear people talk about "compromising" on civil rights, it brings to mind the kind of crap you hear from domestic abuse enablers.


"We're just going to have to compromise on the WORD marriage, in order to placate the people who don't think we deserve equality."
=
"Oh, well, he only hits me when I make him angry, and that's not really a reason to leave him."

"They're willing to consider letting gay partners visit their lovers on their deathbeds, so let's give a little bit in return."
=
"He didn't hit me when I forgot to fold his socks last night, so I owe him a blowjob tonight."

"Hey, things are much worse for women and gays in Iran! We should be thankful we live in such a wonderful and progressive nation, where they only violate some of our basic human rights."
=
"Well, sure, I guess he kind of broke my jaw that one time, but one of my girl friends' husband broke BOTH of her arms. So my husband isn't so bad."

Cripes, people, have a little self respect. He's not hitting you because he loves you. He's not taking away your rights for the good of the country. He's a selfish asshat who is going to abuse you for as long as you let him.

Actually, if an Amendment is successfully adopted and ratified, it is by definition Constitutional, and its content supersedes the content of previous Amendments with which it may conflict.
Which is kind of weird, if you think about it:

"This amendment is unconstitutional, until we all decide that it's part of the Constitution, at which point it becomes constitutional."

Trippy.

<snip>
Cripes, people, have a little self respect. He's not hitting you because he loves you. He's not taking away your rights for the good of the country. He's a selfish asshat who is going to abuse you for as long as you let him.
So well said. So, so very well said.

Remember Americans, if rational argument fails, you must be prepared to wage total war on the religious right. A stitch in time saves nine, so arm yourselves now.

The Moral Majority is neither moral nor the majority. The Religious Right isn't.

I have been mad at them for years. No one has exclusive access to God, not the pope, not your pastor and certainly not these people who have nothing to do better with their wretched lives than to tell you how to live yours. It is absolutely pathetic some of the things these so called "Godly" people do.

Most of the time I simply ignore them in real life, but as of late I have told them to shut the hell up and go away. Everything was OK in this country until these characters started asking me WWJD.

I suggest Jesus would tell you to butt the hell out of my life and let me take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for myself. Your relationship with your deity is none of my business. My relationship with my deity is none of anyone's business but my own.

This whole pathetic business of the FMA and the anti-Flag burning amendment is horseshit, just another way to divide Americans right down the secular and ideological faultlines.

Bit of an update from Massachusetts as it pertains to the discussion:

The sky is firmly in place, there are no sightings of four horsemen riding together, hell is still quite balmy, no dog-toaster marriages yet, pedophilia is not the new rage, and still plenty of straight people running around.

Screw all that noise. There are some subjects on which we should not accept compromise. We don't ask Jews to compromise on the subject of whether or not they should be wiped out like vermin. We don't ask black people to compromise on whether or not they get to count as 3/5ths of a person. But, for some reason, we still expect women and gays to be willing to settle for partial human status, and to be thankful for it.
I don't have much to say, but I felt this was deserving of a quote.

Bit of an update from Massachusetts as it pertains to the discussion:

The sky is firmly in place, there are no sightings of four horsemen riding together, hell is still quite balmy, no dog-toaster marriages yet, pedophilia is not the new rage, and still plenty of straight people running around.
Pfft, this is all just homosexual propaganda. I've heard that straight people are used as free-roaming livestock, box turtles fornicate wildly on every street corner, and the Massachusetts state motto has been changed to, "All Fag, All The Time...Or Else We Kill Ya!"

Pfft, this is all just homosexual propaganda. I've heard that straight people are used as free-roaming livestock, box turtles fornicate wildly on every street corner, and the Massachusetts state motto has been changed to, "All Fag, All The Time...Or Else We Kill Ya!"

That's unfortunate. Fornicating box turtles are such a turn-off too...

Bit of an update from Massachusetts as it pertains to the discussion:

The sky is firmly in place, there are no sightings of four horsemen riding together, hell is still quite balmy, no dog-toaster marriages yet, pedophilia is not the new rage, and still plenty of straight people running around.

Pity. :(

Pity. :(
She forgot to mention that in recent polls in Massachussetts, support for gay marriage has hit close to or over 50%, and that in legislative elections, a number of politicians who opposed gay marriage lost their seats to politicians who supported it.

Whenever I hear people talk about "compromising" on civil rights, it brings to mind the kind of crap you hear from domestic abuse enablers.


"We're just going to have to compromise on the WORD marriage, in order to placate the people who don't think we deserve equality."
=
"Oh, well, he only hits me when I make him angry, and that's not really a reason to leave him."

"They're willing to consider letting gay partners visit their lovers on their deathbeds, so let's give a little bit in return."
=
"He didn't hit me when I forgot to fold his socks last night, so I owe him a blowjob tonight."

"Hey, things are much worse for women and gays in Iran! We should be thankful we live in such a wonderful and progressive nation, where they only violate some of our basic human rights."
=
"Well, sure, I guess he kind of broke my jaw that one time, but one of my girl friends' husband broke BOTH of her arms. So my husband isn't so bad."

Cripes, people, have a little self respect. He's not hitting you because he loves you. He's not taking away your rights for the good of the country. He's a selfish asshat who is going to abuse you for as long as you let him.


Very well said that went in my collection

She forgot to mention that in recent polls in Massachussetts, support for gay marriage has hit close to or over 50%, and that in legislative elections, a number of politicians who opposed gay marriage lost their seats to politicians who supported it.
Which just goes to prove the homophobes' point! If we start allowing homosexuals to behave as though they are full citizens of this country, entitled to all the same rights and protections as real human beings, then pretty soon we'll end up with a country where most people don't even hate fags!!!!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

She forgot to mention that in recent polls in Massachussetts, support for gay marriage has hit close to or over 50%, and that in legislative elections, a number of politicians who opposed gay marriage lost their seats to politicians who supported it.

"She" didn't forget to mention anything. :)

They ARE human beings and they DO deserve the same rights as everyone else!!

Zombie thread!!!!
:p

Pretty much, yeah. :)

I'm honestly a bit sick of being told that I need to "compromise" on issues of civil rights. I'm supposed to "compromise" on the subject of whether or not my body belongs to me. I'm supposed to "compromise" on whether or not somebody else's religious beliefs trump my own. I'm supposed to "compromise" on whether or not I have the right to pick who I marry.

Screw all that noise. There are some subjects on which we should not accept compromise. We don't ask Jews to compromise on the subject of whether or not they should be wiped out like vermin. We don't ask black people to compromise on whether or not they get to count as 3/5ths of a person. But, for some reason, we still expect women and gays to be willing to settle for partial human status, and to be thankful for it.

Indeed. I'm reminded of an old quote:


I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is no the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace whi9ch is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your method of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I think everyone that hates gays or eants to prevent their marriage is a closeted one. (Mind you, I'm straight.)

I think everyone that hates gays or eants to prevent their marriage is a closeted one. (Mind you, I'm straight.)

Well said. Not actually true in all cases, but it is actually more true than most people would think. A lot of people who are so stubborn, etc., are actually just covering up their insecurities about their own orientation, mainly because they feel guilty about having it (due to the previous people - vicious cycle). Not all, tho.

Very well said that went in my collection

I like it too!

Pretty much, yeah. :)

I'm honestly a bit sick of being told that I need to "compromise" on issues of civil rights. I'm supposed to "compromise" on the subject of whether or not my body belongs to me. I'm supposed to "compromise" on whether or not somebody else's religious beliefs trump my own. I'm supposed to "compromise" on whether or not I have the right to pick who I marry.

Screw all that noise. There are some subjects on which we should not accept compromise. We don't ask Jews to compromise on the subject of whether or not they should be wiped out like vermin. We don't ask black people to compromise on whether or not they get to count as 3/5ths of a person. But, for some reason, we still expect women and gays to be willing to settle for partial human status, and to be thankful for it.

Thank you!

What a bunch of garbage. Nobody should be given benefits by the state for marriage unless they are willing to adopt children or raise their own children. If this was really about the family, this would be the requirement. The gay/straight biblical stuff bothers me a little bit. But to get a lot of benefits for doing nothing is ridiculous. Marriage in a church is a religious issue. Officially, there is separation between church and state. If we give welfare mothers benefits for having families, why not regular people.

Gays shouldn't get to b married. For the very fact that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Hey that was easy, look at that the very defintion of the word, should make it impossilbe. Just tell them to do the same thing under a different name i don' care if they go and have union blah, or w/e but they just can't call it marriage.
Also religious matters would totally ban gays all together.
And the seperation of Church and state, was originally ment to keep state out of Church not the other way around. Making it mutual is just stupid as ppl who r in state follow the teachings of the church.

Everyone likes to point and say marriage is mainly religious. It is to create a family. It runs across all lines of people. No one likes to think of marriage as a contract to create a family, but that is what it is. Too many people take advantage of society by saying I should have a benefit given to my partner because I am married. Take a little time to look at what marriage is for, before saying I have a right.

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.

That's kind of what they are supposed to do. You want votes you do what the voters tell you to do.

I think everyone that hates gays or eants to prevent their marriage is a closeted one. (Mind you, I'm straight.)

That's just insane. I've very much straight and very anti homosexual marriage. Every consider that maybe you are the closeted one?

Everyone likes to point and say marriage is mainly religious. It is to create a family. It runs across all lines of people. No one likes to think of marriage as a contract to create a family, but that is what it is. Too many people take advantage of society by saying I should have a benefit given to my partner because I am married. Take a little time to look at what marriage is for, before saying I have a right.
Marriage is not for the creation of families. Marriage is for the combining of property and wealth. History provides abundant evidence of what marriage is really about. Read up on poor Lucrezia Borgia and all the times she got married, annulled, married, widowed, married and widowed again, just so her father could get richer and more well connected. He didn't always wait for her to produce kids from those husbands before getting rid of them, either. But he made sure to get those dowries, all right. And the Borgias are just an extreme example of what marriage was about for 1000s of years. This fairy tale of marrying for love and producing children that will be little angels of pure, unsullied love is strictly a modern idea. Hell, in the old days, the poor who had no property to exchange often didn't even bother getting officially married. That's how the world has such a thing as common law marriage, which is when two people have co-habited long enough to be considered married, even without a ceremony.

Gays shouldn't get to b married. For the very fact that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Hey that was easy, look at that the very defintion of the word, should make it impossilbe. Just tell them to do the same thing under a different name i don' care if they go and have union blah, or w/e but they just can't call it marriage.
Also religious matters would totally ban gays all together.
And the seperation of Church and state, was originally ment to keep state out of Church not the other way around. Making it mutual is just stupid as ppl who r in state follow the teachings of the church.

<sigh> Another victim of a poor education system.

Marriage is, in the manner we speak of, two things in the eyes of society and the law.

1. The RELIGIOUS rite as performed by a church that confers blessings upon the state of holy matrimony.

2. The contract granted on two people assigning them the civil state of marriage.

#1 is spiritual and is controlled by religions. #2 is civil and is a contractual state assigning both rights and responsibilities to the couple.

Both may exist independently of each other and frequently couples who do not express a preference for a religious system (or simply do not follow any religion at all) take the civil option. But more often they co-exist and the legal edges are blurred.

The Churches have no legal say and have no real "stake" in option #2. On the other hand, governments confer the ability upon a priest the ability to legally confer the civil state of marriage upon couples who marry in a church as courtesy. The couple still must get a license to marry and follow through with the government's requirements or all the ceremony in the Church is is a granting of religious blessings through a rite. Simply put, the Church grants it's spiritual approval upon the union, but without the power granted by the state there is no CIVIL state of marriage.

Merriam Webster has five definitions for the word "marriage."

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

Gays shouldn't get to b married. For the very fact that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Hey that was easy, look at that the very defintion of the word, should make it impossilbe. Just tell them to do the same thing under a different name i don' care if they go and have union blah, or w/e but they just can't call it marriage.
Also religious matters would totally ban gays all together.
And the seperation of Church and state, was originally ment to keep state out of Church not the other way around. Making it mutual is just stupid as ppl who r in state follow the teachings of the church.
Please explain precisely what will happen to you if gays get to be married and call it marriage. Please explain precisely what privilege you think should be reserved only for heterosexual couples under the heading of marriage, and how letting gays use the word would affect that.

Oh, and you are wrong about the separation of church and state. It is a two-way street because it can't be a one-way street and still be a separation. If the church is allowed to influence the state, what you've got is a theocracy, not a separation. The US is not a theocracy (and won't be, if I can help it).