Is a Constitutional Amendment necessary or what?

[south]

Here in the United States of America there has been quite a controversy
About the institution of Marriage and to whom do we afford this right.
Is it possible to have a “Marriage” between two people of the same sex?
Should same sex domestic partners be made to have the same rights and responsibilities that we as a society hold to heterosexual couples?

Personally I am clear about what I feel.
As lexicon, I feel that the word “marriage” should be reserved to the union between a man and a woman. That is the point where the discrimination should end.
If same sex couples wish to declare their undying love for each other then there should be a new nice warm and fuzzy name to describe that union.
They should be held to the same standards of legal rights and responsibilities and given the same respect for their relationship that we would afford a heterosexual couple.
Given the specter of divorce why anyone would want to do this willingly is a mystery to me.
Any opinions??

[GingerV]

I'm never short on opinions...but I'll limit myself to a question this time. It's a simple, if open ended one....why?

Why on earth should marriage be limited to that which exists between a man and a woman?

Because, honestly, I've heard a lot of reasons...and none of them make sense.

I think the least that should be extended to gay couples is the ability to establish the legal equivalency of marriage...but why make it a "seperate but equal" thing? After all, that didn't do anything but stigmatize people in the past.

[divot109]

Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals nor do I have the time in my life to spend a great deal of energy worrying about what others choose to do with their lives, just so long as it doesn't affect mine. Therefore, I don't have a staunch opinion on this matter, and normally I'd say leave them be to do as they will. That said, I do hope that Bush signs the amendment banning gay marriage for the simple fact that he will have ostrasized a rather large segment of the voting public thus losing a great deal of votes come November. Perhaps this will be a great way to get him out of office, which is imperative to the welfare of this country.

[paprclphd]

My opinion (although some won't want to read it):

What the hell is wrong with it? The divorce rate these days is higher than a cat's back, and who are WE to say who can be married and who can not be married. I say that if gays and lesbians want to get married and live a happy, tax paying, joined, legal life then what the heck are they doing wrong??

People are just not up for change and some of our politicians are still living (and making laws) like it is 1950. What they don't understand is that the vows you take when you are married have nothing to do with whether you have a penis or vagina, they have everything to do with whether or not you love, cherish, respect, yadda yadda, the person standing next to you. And if these people can say "I do" to that and mean it - THEN LET THEM!!!

[axe31]

the u.s. has laws against discimanation this amendment will
break them laws and break the constitution youre fore fathers
had to fight for freedom for all not just those who are like you.
all the argements i have heard against same sex marriages
are almost al ways about religon or that its aways been like this
first civil marriage has nothing to do with the church secondly
this is the same argement that segragaton was allway like this
bush and arnie are steping on the rights of americans about one
in ten (10%) of ther voters are gay then there is ther familys
and friends try it bush we will march for equal right ten percent
can keep you out of office failing that we will take you to the
u.n. court of human rights the uk goverment have had to change there stand thanks to e.u.court of human right wont to be next
bush :mad:

[TRUSTNO1]

Short and to the point...Government need's to stay out of people's bedrooms and worry about running the country!! Focus on..I dont know capturing Osama Bin Laden maybe!! That's just my opinion. Everyone should have freedom to choose how they live!!

[nikki1979]

i think everyone shud have the right to marry. im totally for gay and lesbian marrage and want to know what the hell cud be wrong w two ppl who are in luv declaring it and all that jazz

~nikki

[south]

Great responses all!
The sort of the life affirming thinking one might expect from our little group.

Still I ponder, Is the joining of a man and a women
the same as the joining of a man and a man
or a women and a woman?

I say not exactly.
Therefore there should be a way to differentiate by word , not discrimiante by deeds.

[BamaKyttn]

South, there is a word..... "Civil Union" but it doesn't let my insurance from work cover the woman I love. It will kick any assets I have back to my parents and my DW will be stuck with a $70,000 house and about 40 pets of various species(about half of them mine) and knowing my parents, she won't get ANY help.Not only that, while some women/men turn to the church for help in their time of woe and need, even the church wouldn't be able to come to help, they just~for the most part~can not overcome their problems with homosexuality although it has become overly obvious even within their own doors, painfully obviously even. I have to say that my feathers were a bit ruffled at the "Warm and Fuzzy" part of your statement but I know what you mean. I never in my life thought of getting married, it was always a "handfasting" in my mind but of course that could be just due to a difference in religon.


Side note: nuns, monks those kinds of people usually refer to themselves as married to god, hmmmmmmm monks are men.... god is usually portrayed as male...... WUH_OH!


okay enough of me running my mouth and looking stupid

Fun Fact: my job has no insurance or benefits........


Always
Kyttn

[Lilith]

Excellent point Bama! My tax return only gives me the option of MARRIED filing joint....not UNIONIZED filing joint.:shrugs:

[BamaKyttn]

>warm fuzzies< thats the first time I think you've ever told me I was right in public >grin<

[Scarecrow]

South, in MHO the Admenment would not pass, so let them go ahead and have their fun and we can watch it died just like ERA

[south]

Bamma---
Holy polygamy Batman... God is a Bigamist!
No wonder some priests feel justified by cheating on God with young boys....
I never liked that expression "married to God"
Get real. Priests Married to God? Now that would screw up a 1040 form royally if they filed jointly wouldn't it?

Scarecrow--you ever get the feeling that this is yet another Bush Administration "weapon of mass distraction"?

Lil- LMAO "Unionized" loveit! that is exactly why we need a warm and fuzzy name...perhaps "HOFFAED"?

[GingerV]

A gay or lesbian marriage wouldn't be the same as marriage between a man and a woman? I offer the observation that it could be precisely the same.

The reasons my gay friends (specifically 2 friends in mind who wish to marry, I don't pretend to speak for everyone) want to get married are precisely the same reasons that my hetero friends have. What they want out of the relationship are companionship, commitment and sharing that I want eventually.

The argument I see put forward about how it would be different (elsewhere, folks here are apparently much smarter ;)) is that my gay friends aren't getting married to have kids. Well, neither are my hetero friends. Some because they've already got kids...and in one case, because they know that she can't have them.

So simply, no...I don't think there's a difference between gay and hetero marriage. Other than in the minds of people who need there to be a difference....and I don't honestly understand why they need something like that to be true.

Baffled.....

G

[Tess]

It seems that the uproar about gay marriage is a politically correct declaration of homophobia. The marital status of the people next door has no direct effect on me, so why should I care?

On the other hand, with our modern society's track record on marriage, ANY marriage these days has only a 50/50 chance of lasting. One thing is for sure, should there be legalized marital unions for homosexuals, I sure would love to be a divorce lawyer. My potential clients just increased by 50%.

After all the rhetoric, I am still uncertain how I feel about this issue. As a a compromise, I feel that new powers and privileges should be added to Civil Unions to elevate the rights of gay & lesbian couples equal to heterosexual couples.

As long as equal protection under the law is provided, what matter does it make whether the word, "marriage", is used.

"I now pronounce you husband & wife"
"I now pronounce you husband & husband"
"I now pronounce you wife & wife"
"I now pronounce you top & bottom"
"I now pronounce you man & man"
"I now pronounce you woman & woman"
"I now pronounce you bull & queen"
"I now pronounce you dyke & femme"
"I now pronounce you fucker & fuckee"

Geez, What happened to the "Keep it simple" principle?

[Aqua]

So far the main argument I have seen in favor of a constitutional amendment is, "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman." So it boils down to, "It's been that way for a really long time so why on Earth would we change it?"

People said the same thing when slavery was legal.

I've also heard that it argued that it isn't right because marriage is about family and a same sex couple cannot conceive children on their own.

This logic suggests a we should also ban sterile men and women from being married. Oh... and what if a couple just don't want children?

There is NO reasonable reason why same sex couples should not receive the same benefits as hetero couples. If these marriages are allowed it will not have an effect on the marriage of a hetero couple. So what's the problem?

Pardon me for one last vent, but the thing that really bothers me is the hate that I hear from some (not all) religious people on this issue. I do not claim to be knowledgable of all faith's, but I do think that hatred is a value that is often spoke of in an undesirable fashion.

[mrbri]

In regards to what Divot said about President Bush losing votes come November,it is not going to happen, in fact quite the opposite. I'll explain, the majority of homosexuals usually vote democrat so it would not be Bush losing votes,they would not vote for him anyways .Also the majority of America still believes in the Constitution and that marriage should be only between a man and a woman thus giving President Bush even more votes come November. So it will be Bush in 2004 and I will feel more safe in this great country knowing he's our leader. I mean come on think about it ,if it wasn't for President Bush we might all have turned 5000 degrees at some time as the result of these coward terrorists. Wonder why we have not been attacked again? Its because we have a leader that did something about the problem unlike the previous administration.

[katekate42]

To me, this is simply an issue of stigmatization. I find it horribly ironic that the same Bible-thumping hypocrites who say "all homosexuals are promiscuous" are now bitching about protecting the "institution" of marriage. Should they not be for something that would cut down on all the alledged promiscuity!? If this was an issue of discriminating on the basis of race, then it would obviously be wrong, but because it is based on someone's sexual preference it's considered ok.

This strikes me as just another place that the government has absolutely no business sticking its nose yet insists upon doing it anyway. Whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, it should enrage you that the U.S. government, for all that it preaches about liberty and equality when it serves its purpose, is now presuming to tell people who they can and cannot marry.

[katekate42]

Apparently I should not be allowed to marry my boyfriend since I do not want to have children...

[denny]

This is a totally political move to cover up past failures and cleanse George W.'s slate. Don't fall for his shit!!

[gekkogecko]

1. "Allowing gays to marry diminishes the institution of marriage and harms the traditional family values"

Unmigated bullshit.

NO ONE is harmed by allowing a same sex couple marriage. NO ONE. To claim that couple A, who might be a single man and a single woman are somehow diminished in their relationship by allowing couple B, who for example are two men to marry, speaks nothing of how B harm A: but, rather of how A are so insecure of thier relationship that they have to worry about B.

2. "Marriage has always been about a single man and a single woman relationship"

Unmitigated bullshit. Even among the most extreme fanatics of Judeo/Christain/Islamic practice, this is a demonstrably untrue statement.

Banning same-sex marriage is not about saving the family. It's about hatemongering, pure and simple.

[mrbri]

Hmmmm I'm still thinking of what past failures your thinking of because there IS NONE. You libs are all alike so predictable its funny!

[Lilith]

Most political parties or divisions are predictable. We like them that way.

[BlueSwede]

Just like the miscegenation laws that many states had in the past, which not only made it illegal to marry interracially but actually had prison sentences in some states for those who married anyway, I think a case should be brought before the Supreme Court so that they can state that civil marriage ceremonies between ANYONE, regardless of sex, is legal.

[BamaKyttn]

<i> Pardon me for one last vent, but the thing that really bothers me is the hate that I hear from some (not all) religious people on this issue. I do not claim to be knowledgable of all faith's, but I do think that hatred is a value that is often spoke of in an undesirable fashion. </i> I'm sorry if that was directed at me Aqua? >hangs head< sorry if I came off as a hater.....

Mr.Bri I really hope you're kidding but, if you're not I respect your right to your opinion. You are correct in that a lot of Dubyas' support base is the good 'ol boy club and their barefoot and pregnant wives. you know the kind that go out and find people like me and either burn them at the stake for being witches or torture and sometimes kill us for being homosexuals and loving those closer to us. I'm sorry but who knows better what to touch and when to touch it than someone who has the same equipment? But some of his supporters probably have homosexual relatives and some will feel that familial tug and want their {sisiter, brother, cousin, niece, nephew} relative to be happy as well. Oh and uh........ where are the jobs??? and show me the weapons?




BTW in case you can't tell I don't have television, no newspaper, no time to listen to the radio..... so I'm not completely UTD on everything never have been big on politics........


Always
Kyttn

[mrbri]

Weapons are there too just the liberal media wont report it. Now I do hope your kidding when you said "you know the kind that go out and find people like me and either burn them at the stake for being witches or torture and sometimes kill us for being homosexuals and loving those closer to us." Ain't that pretty much accusing people like myself of doing something immoral and being cold killers? Now I'm sorry to you homosexuals but its been said since the time of Adam and Eve that marraige should only be between a man and a woman.

[mrbri]

Oh yea jobs are there too but of course the media again won't report it because of the hatred they have for this administration.Man we'd all be in hell if Gore won the 2000 election!

[BamaKyttn]

Mr Bri oh no...... worse than what Desert Storm Jr hath wrought upon us?

[osuche]

OK...realize that much of the issue here is a political one. Companies would be obligated to provide spousal benefits (at cost to them) to "married" gay and lesbian couples. Additionally, there is a potential marriage tax benefit, and Social Security.

The cost of these benefits are a choking point for many. However, I personally believe that the US goverment should stay out of this one and let the states do their thing.

The Constitution was meant to be an INCLUSIVE document, rather than an exclusive document. Preventing a certain segment from having rights seems out of context in this great document/institution.

[curvyredhead]

Originally posted by BamaKyttn
South, there is a word..... "Civil Union" but it doesn't let my insurance from work cover the woman I love. It will kick any assets I have back to my parents and my DW will be stuck with a $70,000 house and about 40 pets of various species(about half of them mine) and knowing my parents, she won't get ANY help.Not only that, while some women/men turn to the church for help in their time of woe and need, even the church wouldn't be able to come to help, they just~for the most part~can not overcome their problems with homosexuality although it has become overly obvious even within their own doors, painfully obviously even. I have to say that my feathers were a bit ruffled at the "Warm and Fuzzy" part of your statement but I know what you mean. I never in my life thought of getting married, it was always a "handfasting" in my mind but of course that could be just due to a difference in religon.


Side note: nuns, monks those kinds of people usually refer to themselves as married to god, hmmmmmmm monks are men.... god is usually portrayed as male...... WUH_OH!


okay enough of me running my mouth and looking stupid

Fun Fact: my job has no insurance or benefits........


Always
Kyttn


BamaKyttn,

I have only one thing to say....

Spot On!

You are soooo right! People need to have a more open mind! And handfasting is the way to go!

[GingerV]

Not for nothing....but it's slightly more sinester than just "big gov" telling the little state govs what they can and can't do.

They've left it up to the states so far for whatever reason, but the courts are showing signs that the anti-gay laws most states have (and they do already have them in 38? ish states) can be struck down as unconstitutional.

Hence, the need for the constitutional amendment. It's not the states' hands W. is trying to take this out of....it's the courts'.

[fzzy]

Ok, I've thought about this a bit, for the most part I leave my thoughts and feelings about political and religious stuff away from this forum, I'm a member of Pixies because I use it for a place to express a part of my life that doesn't get much expression within my day to day "real life".

I understand that there may be concerns about what happens to a partner after your death, but don't blame the government for what happens to your assets if there isn't a plan in place for your asset distribution that isn't what is wanted ... a Will would take care of most of what you want to happen with assets - the scenario of them not going to a partner would only be the case if you died "intestate" (without a will and/or trust). If you die with a Will, then the terms of the Will will be honored so long as it is legal - gifting to a life partner is legal. (I point this out for general information purposes)

I think this issue is very much a financial issue, insurance companies, etc. have big lobbying dollars and having (years ago) worked in the health/life insurance industry for a large insurance company, I know they have some really big concerns about this.

I think the issue is very much ALSO a beliefs issue .... and pardon me, but as a conservative right-wing person, I get kind of tired of people assuming that I hate them when I have never made a hate comment intentionally to anyone in my life, I don't even believe I have that mindset. Most times, I'm so concerned about making sure that people around me, etc., are happy and feel the love I have for them. I have been involved in a particular religion for all of my life and continue to be so at a fairly deep level, however, as stated above, I don't usually bring that to this forum, but must say that in all the people I know from the religious community, I've never met someone who is all that different from my approach. I have met many who are not within a strong religious following who are willing to accuse me (and others like me) of "hatemongering" though, something I've always found interesting.

At the risk of stating an unpopular view, I agree that marriage should be and is defined (currently) as a union between a man and a woman. It is inherently linked to my beliefs, but like you, South, I don't have a problem with others having a union of a different "name" ... maybe it's not the popular thing, and maybe it's not the politically correct view, but it's mine all the same.

[Loulabelle]

Seems to me pretty pointless to introduce a new institution with exactly the same rights/priveledges as marriage, just for gay people, as there is already in existence a perfectly good one.

There have recently been two posts in Sex News on this site, regarding marriage between a woman and her dead Fiance in France, and a man and a dog in Kathmandu. Sounds to me like plenty of other cultures are willing to take a wider view on marriage.

I thought the 'sanctity of marriage' was to do with two people's loving commitment to each other for the rest of their lives, bringing up children in a stable and loving environment etc etc. Seems to me that children of gay and lesbian people should have the same right to that stability, as others.

[Belial]

Personally, I find the "It's always been that way" approach to be rather irrational and pathetic. Any institution that can't be adequately "protected" by anything other than its status as an institution isn't worth "protecting".

Now, we have the idea before us that a marriage must be defined as a union between a man and a woman. One argument that has been put against it is that evergreen, the "slippery slope" - the idea that if we move down the ideological slope to the point of allowing homosexual marriage, we risk sliding further towards "more perverse" definitions of marriage. The problem with this is that we presume the current definition to be the top of the slope, when that is not necessarily so. As BlueSwede mentioned, there have been in the past anti-miscegenation laws. So, having made the definition of marriage more liberal than before, haven't we already begun the "slide"? Did the world collapse into chaos when we did? Because we did?

The "STD" argument is another that has me baffled, simply because the acts of "sodomy" practised by homosexuals as the primary means of sexual contact can all be performed by heterosexuals too - unless of course, you're in one of those wonderful states with anti-sodomy laws. Now, is there any medical basis for suggesting that a man is more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease from a man's anus than a woman's? Does it even matter? In a free society, can we - should we stop adults of able mind and will from choosing to engage in behaviour that might be risky? If STDs are really of concern, why isn't there a push for promiscuity laws? No, this argument, in my opinion, is all about the need to strike out at and restrict people not fearful of the lobbyists' god.

God - I could write a fair bit on this fellow, but I feel that this is the most important argument to deal with: "God says...". Since when, in a country puportedly permitting free practise of religion, should what god thinks be of any concern whatsoever to lawmakers? Not that I advocate open defiance of everything biblical, but here is a clear example of needless discrimination. To me, churches are an assault on what I see as an institution of rational thought, and infant baptisms an assault on freedom and free will, but I'm not trying to make them unconstitutional, because ultimately it doesn't change my personal experience unless I let it. So go ahead, don't recognize homosexual marriage as a "godly" union, call it invalid or whatever, but don't legislate that which clearly has no effect on you and serves only to marginalize a significant part of society whose defining behaviour is, at least check, legal.

[Belial]

Oh, and for that guy who used the phrase "liberal media" - can you name for me any major media corporations run by liberals? Because, off the top of my head, I can't think of any, and believe me, I tried.

[Irish]

"Anger is the wind,that blows out the light of the mind!"This,like
any other,political or religious subject,causes nothing but disagreements & therefore in my opinion,should be avoided.My
$.02. Irish

[Casperr]

I'm just adding my voice to the "If you can wed Men with Women, why not Men with Men or Women with Women?" camp.

Marriage should be more about love than gender.


However, I think one of the main arguments been that a male and female rolemodel are essential for 'proper upbringing' of a child. Which is a silly argument, in my opinion. Having same-sex parents does not, in itself, preclude someone from having rolemodels of other genders, for a start. Nor can it be proven to be detrimental to a child's upbringing.
If anything, it could have the benefit of raising the child in a tolerant, understanding environment.
Besides, how many kids get a 'proper upbringing' these days, anyway? Lots of kids with single parents (which is perfectly legal) don't, if that's the definition!

And yeah, it's all a political sideshow.
What, Iraq? Where's that?? Osama? Never heard of him!

CasperTG

[SuzyQ]

I am bi, and am mostly happily married to a heterosexual man, I have a girlfriend but wouldn't want to be married to a woman. Which doesn't mean anything, really.

I am Canadian and we have the same struggle, but I pose a question. If we decide that marraige between same sex couples is ok, how about brother and sister, father and daughter, etc? Are we discriminating if we don't allow those either? And as far as I know they are NOT allowed in Canada. Don't know about the States.

Love,

Susan

[lakritze]

This has got to be some of the most divisive crock of election year bull shit to come down the poop shoot in a long time.MRBRL,I would really like to find a way you can find safety in the bossom of the Bush family while the rest of us return him to Crawford Texas and try to get on with our lives. Liberal media my butt,don'chya know that was a lie to?

[Aqua]

Originally posted by BamaKyttn
<i> Pardon me for one last vent, but the thing that really bothers me is the hate that I hear from some (not all) religious people on this issue. I do not claim to be knowledgable of all faith's, but I do think that hatred is a value that is often spoke of in an undesirable fashion. </i> I'm sorry if that was directed at me Aqua? >hangs head< sorry if I came off as a hater.....

(((Bama))), that comment was not directed toward anyone here specifically. It stemmed from comments I have heard in groups, on the radio, on TV, and on the 'Net.

mrbri... Under the current President we have, high unemployment, no WMD's to be found (and this comes from the Bush administration, who had at one time guranteed the world that the weapons were there, but has since backed down and admitted that they may have been wrong), a record federal deficit while managing to set records for campaign contributions...
And cry the usual conservative call of 'liberal media' if you like but; A) If the media is so liberally biased why was President Clinton's private life put on a daily display through it?
B) Why are there so many conservative talk shows on the radio?
Basically the media is there to report on the things they think the majority of the people want to hear. That's it.

[BamaKyttn]

Aqua> whew! I was afraid I was pissin you off hun.

>>>>>If we decide that marraige between same sex couples is ok, how about brother and sister, father and daughter, etc? Are we discriminating if we don't allow those either? And as far as I know they are NOT allowed in Canada. <

There is a genetic basis that shows that heavy line breeding can and does lead to mental and physical infirmities. Any mental or physical flaw that is there will be heavilly multiplied. so in the case of genetics I support the no happy birfday uncle dad rulesdoesn't mean I don't like reading about it......

[thedog]

Commenting on the topic of this post ... A Constitutional Amendment.

The proposed amendment is one of only two amendments ever to restrict rather than broaden individual rights (the other was Prohibition and that was repealed). And thankfully, our forefathers had the insight to anticipate politically motivated people like Mr. George Dubya who consistently elevates personal agendas above the people he's been elected (?) to serve.

Amending the Constitution is a very, very difficult process. First, it puts aside any simple majority that might exist in the House and Senate and instead, requires that a full 2/3 of each of these bodies separately vote to amend. In the politically divisive atmosphere that exists, that won't happen 'til pigs fly.

It doesn't stop there ... if the House and the Senate approve the amendment, two-thirds of the states have to ratify it by popular vote.

Personal opinion: This is a mean-spirited, heavy-handed and vile attempt by Mr. No Child Left Behind to force-feed his personal beliefs on a nation. And if his history of administration vendettas against those who disagree with his or his lackey administration opinions is indicative, any or all of you who disagree with his position will quickly be branded as non-patriotic, traitors, and possibly, terrorists.

He may, through administrative and executive order, choose to rape and pillage our wildlands and wetlands, pollute our air, clear-cut our forests, side-step the senatorial process and appoint seedy judges, gut our environmental safeguards, attempt to erode our constitutional rights to freedom and privacy, deplete our national goodwill, personally brand someone a bandit and hold them without access to counsel, lie and deceive the people he's been entrusted to govern, and bankrupt our economy (how long would you like this list to be?) ...

But Mr. Dubya has met his match in the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and others ... the drafters of the Constitution. Thankfully, they foresaw the possibility of some buffoon such as Mr. Compassionate Conservative himself attempting to bend the will of the land to satisfy his personal ego and made it extremely difficult to do so.

Good luck, Dubya - you'll need it.

[BamaKyttn]

>>>>Weapons are there too just the liberal media wont report it. Now I do hope your kidding when you said "you know the kind that go out and find people like me and either burn them at the stake for being witches or torture and sometimes kill us for being homosexuals and loving those closer to us." Ain't that pretty much accusing people like myself of doing something immoral and being cold killers? Now I'm sorry to you homosexuals but its been said since the time of Adam and Eve that marraige should only be between a man and a woman.<<<<<



No it's accusing people like you of being guilty of an illegal thing Discrimination. Morals don't have a damn to do with it.Remember, burning at the stake I don't question peoples morals, I can't make you up hold your morals.Hitlers' morals were that anyone not blonde, tall and fair complected was inferior...... well hey I'm a master race then :P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


as for the creation of a child..... the catholics preach that EVERY sexual encounter shoulf have at least a large marginal chance of producing a child, otherwise you have sinned in the eyes of god. but you know I've seen some people who don't need to breed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Always
Kyttn



LILITH wheres that damn mute button I asked for?

[skipthisone]

Another big reason to not go to the polls...they no longer matter, Bush hasnt a chance in hell and is a moot point. No constitutional amendment will ever pass again in this country, a judge will figure out a way to block it. Congress no longer has any power but to spend money on their pet causes, end of story.

The only problem I have with what is going on in San Fran is that it is against CA law. I do not care what the law is, if you have sworn to uphold it (like the mayor of San Fran did) you in no way break it. Fight it in court, do whatever, but do not blatantly break it. But then again that is where we are in the country.

Judges now rule this country, which means lawyers rule this country which means you can basically do what you want, as long as you have the money or brains to fight it in court....

Let the Anarchist states of America arise.

[dreamgurl]

who want's to pay more taxes? but i still am from the old school that marrage is for procreation only, but times have changed and with the divorce rate lets see if they can't fix it

[Loren]

Oh, come on now--3 pages and nobody has seen the big difference? Gays and lesbians won't have shotgun weddings! It's all plus for them, no punishment. That's totally unfair!

[Scarecrow]

Come on ppl its all about the MONEY, big companies do not want to pay for the benifits and the government does not want the SS or income tax break burden.

[Tess]

Rosie O'Donnell got married to her *fill in the blank* today on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall.

I am underwhelmed.

[south]

To everyone a collective wow.

Here is something to consider...Naturally there was a time, actually for quite a long time in our history, that there was no such thing as "Marriage" for anyone.
I have heard it said and I don't know if this is true or not, despite it's plausibility, that “Marriage” arose from a time when it was not possible for a woman to own property or have any rights of their own. Women were basically a form of chattel.
If for any reason a women with a child was to find herself without her mate or “husband” she would find herself in a destitute position and she and her offspring would be at the mercy of the world.
Religious officials and I don’t know which flavor religion it was at the time figured, that if you could form an “until death do you part union” then a woman would be the responsibility of the male and would then they would not become a burden on ether the religious institution or the society in general. If say for instance the man needed to have a new woman cause he didn’t like the old one so much anymore.

Now I guess you can say that we have “evolved” a lot as a species since then. Or maybe you may think that we have not come that far at all and we have a long way to go. But in our current society given the all of the changes in science and law, is this not a regressive consideration that we would need to “defend” marriage? Rather maybe now is the time to provide equal protection to those who can prove that their relationships deserve to be acknowledged for their content. That their pledge of some form of undying intent to love honor and cherish care for until death is honorable pledge. That their personal commitment to each other is valid and that no one from outside of that commitment can put asunder that promise.

[Tess]

YaY, South!

Thanks for the voice of reason :)

[Belial]

Oh! Yes, and if marriage and reproduction are inextricably linked, how about sterile people, can they marry?

[BIBI]

Originally posted by Scarecrow
Come on ppl its all about the MONEY, big companies do not want to pay for the benifits and the government does not want the SS or income tax break burden.

Right on Scarecrow!

[BamaKyttn]

South: you sure do got a purty mouth...... you know I guess I might make more sense if I didn't just kinda fly off at the mouth but sat back a bit and speculated.... eheheh

[BIBI]

You know what really pisses me off?

I cannot abide the way the media deals with gay/lesbian couples when they report something.

An example is when Raymond Burr passed away. The news accounts stated that he left his estate to his lover of 35 years.....You don't see that when it is a hetro couple. The media helps propagate the stereotypical myths about gays and lesbians. That they are only into it for sex ! It really riles me that people only think of the sexual aspect of being gay. For goodness sake, there is nothing wrong with two people wanting to committ to eachother in any way they feel that is right for them.
I would like to know how a marriage between a gay couple will affect in any way a straight person's life and times.


If they don't stick there nose into it.........it won't! :)

[mrbri]

Read these stories
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/4/152928.shtml

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/9/170853.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/223237.shtml

now you tell me that you liberals are compassionate! You say Bush won't win , so who will win Kerry (God help us all) first thing he will do is cut our military and God forbid another September 11. 3000 dead.
Mrdog, Bushs personal values are what the majority of America believes in.

Read this page to find out the facts about the jo gain in America!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/25/171833.shtml


And for the WMDS this war aint close to being over they could be found tomorrow!

[south]

Mrbri-
I have a difficult time equating the Bush administration’s opinion and your personal opinion about the need for the amendment to "defend" marriage.
You have not forwarded an opinion that stands to reason…
Give us some of your thoughts. We already know G.W’s
Hey to be honest I voted for Bush...oh yeah I am a registered Republican and none of that means anything to me when it comes time to address what is rational.
This in my opinion the whole things smacks of an election year ploy and is an irrational distractive attention-getting device.
If you want to flog the “liberals” fine. Please don’t do it here …Can you make a point that doesn’t transfigure your message?
Can you tell us why you feel that Marriage needs to be defended from this “homosexual/ liberal” threat?

[mrbri]

Ok my opinion on the marriage issue is that it should be between a man and a woman, I also believe that is the way it was intended. I guess I did go off. I also belive that the SF mayor should be arrested and put away for awhile, he did break the law. But something has to be done whether its an amendment or not. Another thought I have on this issue is I belive this is going to lead to other issues that are going to be just as illegal as gay marriage. Such as people marrying animals, a child marrying a parent etc. So if a liberal wins the white house this november wouldnt they make these things legal to buy votes. Well you asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. So if that does not stand to reason well so be it , thats what I think.

[Tess]

D E M O C R A C Y - n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Americans live in a democracy. We vote, and the majority with the most votes prevails. (in general, please don't interject the last Presidential election into this...)

Overwhelmingly, the majority of people in the U.S. (and even California) have voiced that "marriage" should be the "union of one man and one woman". Wide margin. No hanging chads. So be it. Done. Democracy in action.

Also in America, there are the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. The individual is entitled to equal protection under the law.

Marriages are reserved for the union of one man and one woman. Civil unions are the union of two consenting adults.

Why not grant (through normal legislation) spousal privileges, tax benefits, and recognition to Civil unions and be done with this mess?

The mistake that the mayor of San Francisco made is promoting anarchy instead of social change. Showing gross disrespect for the law is not promoting his cause, no matter how noble and honorable his intentions are. Sorry, he ain't no Ghandi.

I'm getting weary of the tendency in this country for the tail to wag the dog in this country. If you want to affect change, persuade those around you, follow the legislative and judicial procedures, and create a majority. It's been done with women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, and civil rights. With instant communication ,mass media, and lawyers in the thousands, this process can happen faster than it took in the past.

And another thing, I am getting weary of every issue in America becoming another reason to hate George Bush, or bash the liberal establishment. State your argument, and quit trying to demonize somebody.

*steps off of soapbox*

[Belial]

I'm seeing some serious conflicts between points four and five of that definition. What if the majority don't respect the individual or social equality?

[Irish]

I have an opinion on this but I am not going to state it.The Judge,
in the SF case,is an addmitted homosexual.In my opinion,he should have disqualified himself from this case. Irish
P.S.My $.02.Frankly,I personaly,don't see that politics has anything,to do,with this case,except for an excuse, for everyone,
to bash anything that goes against their beliefs!

[jennaflower]

Irish..

You gave in before me... neener neener neener :)

I too am keeping my opinions to myself.. not gonna say either way... this... like religion and politics are too hott for me to touch..

[skipthisone]

Tess....Good post above with one major flaw.

The U.S. isnt a democracy, we do not rule by majority of the people. It is a representative republic, we send people to vote for us. Major differences in how things work. Those less than 1000 men and women in Washington for the most part do not represent their people, they represent themselves and their interests, all parties all lines, with only a few exceptions.

[south]

Woah! could you imagine if the majority actually did rule?
That would scare the bejesus out of me...

[SuzyQ]

Originally posted by BamaKyttn
>>>>>If we decide that marraige between same sex couples is ok, how about brother and sister, father and daughter, etc? Are we discriminating if we don't allow those either? And as far as I know they are NOT allowed in Canada. <

There is a genetic basis that shows that heavy line breeding can and does lead to mental and physical infirmities. Any mental or physical flaw that is there will be heavilly multiplied. so in the case of genetics I support the no happy birfday uncle dad rulesdoesn't mean I don't like reading about it...... [/B]

What if they were steralized and had kids only by adoption like gay couples, then would it be ok?

[Tess]

Right you are, STO, we are a democratic republic, but the principles are still the same. The majority rules. The elected officials are elected by the majority in their state or district, and the majority of the lawmakers prevail in legislative matters.

[skipthisone]

But the key difference is that they dont have to listen to the majority if they dont want to. 99.9% of the people in a state could ask for something and if the representative disagrees, he can vote against it. Sure he/she risks not being re-elected, but that is the distinct difference.

[Aqua]

This is an issue of equal rights. Rights all American's are entitled to, or at least should be. For years blacks weren't allowed to vote, they also weren't allowed to eat or even piss in the same place as a white person. They weren't even allowed to sit in the front of a bus. Breaking an unjust law is sometimes necessary to bring about change, as long as it does not hurt anyone. I applaud the Mayor of San Francisco for being bold enough to challenge a ridiculous law. Ridiculous that is, if you believe this is the land of the free.

Now a question for mrbri... Is this statement Another thought I have on this issue is I belive this is going to lead to other issues that are going to be just as illegal as gay marriage. Such as people marrying animals, a child marrying a parent etc. meant to infer that a gay marriage is the same as marrying an animal? You also have yet to post a logical reason why gays should not marry. Just because you think it should only be for hetero couples and you believe it was intended that way is not a logical argument.

[mrbri]

I did not mean it in the same way I was trying to think of other situations that would be illegal. Maybe there is no logical reason they should not marry, but why can't they marry a person of the opposite sex, what drives them to be a homosexual? Again when I said that I thought marriage should only be for hetero couples I was only stating my opinion and my belief. What is a logical argument that says a homo couple should be married?

[Lilith]

IMO....They should be allowed to marry or form a union or whatever for the exact same reason hetero couples do. Why do hetero couples marry????

[Tess]

Just watched "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO, and one of the guests was Ian McKellan. (Sharni, you would have been proud of him :) )

The subject of gay marriage came up, and Ian McKellan recited this inscription from the walls of Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

(in a letter to George Washington from Thomas Jefferson)

Again, the extraordinary wisdom of the Founding Fathers is shown. I think this helps put this whole discussion into focus.

[BamaKyttn]

Originally posted by mrbri
but why can't they marry a person of the opposite sex, what drives them to be a homosexual? Again when I said that I thought marriage should only be for hetero couples I was only stating my opinion and my belief. What is a logical argument that says a homo couple should be married?



But why if I'm not attracted to a man should I be forced to live next to a sleeping shitting walking working hardon? I prefer women, my preference for women "drives" me to be homosexual.


Do you think that my personal happiness is any less important than yours? Do you think that I love any less, that I don't worry about the people I hold dear?

that which you do unto the least of my people you do unto me..... or somethin like that right? you know most christian based religons profess you should "see Jesus in everyone" and "treat others as you would like to be treated" how would you like it if I said you can't marry a woman, and i think you're going to hell if you're attracted to a woman? my opinion, my beliefs.....

okay anyway

Kyttn

[BIBI]

Originally posted by mrbri
What is a logical argument that says a homo couple should be married?

To have the right and responsibility to choose just like hetro couples. What makes their love any less important than anyone else? If you were gay wouldn't you want the same rights as anyone else and the freedom to make choices to suit your needs and wants?

[GingerV]

One could say (and I don't advocate it, I'm using this to proove a point...bear with me) that with the advent of women's rights in this country of ours...logically, there's no purpose to anyone being married. Women no longer need the protection of a man, financially or practically. Children no longer need to be "legitimate" to claim their rights from both parents. There are even financial dangers in marrying someone....heaven help you the day you realize that your beloved spouse is leaving you after having maxed out your joint credit cards (my poor dad...not a good day). Frankly, it's not logical to need this legal or social reinforcement of what's now primarily an emotional bond.

Nonetheless, this archaic institution is still woven into the fabric of our society. Spouses get special priveleges, ones too numerous to be conveniently indexed. And not all of them legally binding. Nonetheless, we could as easily settle this dispute, make everyone equal...by abolishing the institution of marriage altogether. It is, in actuality, the "logical" answer....if logic really is the problem here. I don't think it is.

Heterosexuals (SOME of them, by no means all) want to get married. Hell, _I_ want to get married someday. Not just because it makes getting a mortage mroe straightforward, but because it's a way to confirm our relationship in front of the world....and to make the world recognize that it exists. Add to the emotional need to formalize emotional coupling the economic and legal benefits given to a spouse. Not only does it, in some cases, change your tax status (and for the record, not always for the better)...but mortgage companies look more favorably on married couples. Having tried to buy a house with a close friend/roommate....this I know to be true. Medically, there's a hell of a lot of difference between "life partner" and "next of kin." Legally, my partner (if I had one) can be forced to testify against me because they're not a spouse. Beyond emotional and financial benefits, you've got purely social ones. And these are the hardest ones to talk about, because here practicality and logic go out the window. Anyone who's gone from bf/gf to fiance or spouse knows that it changes your social status. In the most trivial example I can think of, a spouse can get me out of a class to come to the phone when I'm needed....a boy friend cannot. And when necessary, my bf uses "husband power" to get things done. Husbands can talk to bank managers about my missing debit card, bank managers won't talk to boyfriends. Illogical, but a real life example. In a much more serious example...the business I work in requires me to relocate a lot, universities will bend over backward to help a spouse find a job in the new location. They will not do the same for a boyfriend. Note, it's a purely social distinction, they're under no legal obligation to do either. They just assume that my spouse getting a job is a deal breaker, while boyfriends are more temporary and therefore I might leave them behind. Afterall...if I was really serious about the relationship....I'd have married the guy, right? There are loads I'm missing out on, I know...but it's just a quick cross section of why this token hetero wants to be married. And I see no reason here that wouldn't be equally applicable to a homosexual.

The emotional desire to acknowledge one's relationship is part of human nature...and homosexuals are all too human. They want the acknowledgement. Could that be given to them with a civil union? It could, but only with the undesirable reminder that they are different, and in the eys of many....not "really" married. The financial pressures to be married are all part of living in this country and wanting the best life you can get for yourself. There's no logical reason why these shouldn't apply equally to homosexual people. Could they be granted with a civil union. Honestly, not easily. Seperate but equal didn't work in the segregated south purely because seperate institutions implied that one group was better than another...and therefore got consistently better treatment. Even before desegregation...black americans had to fight to maintain the equal part of "seperate but equal," and never really got it. There might be similar stuggles with banks, insurance companies, HMOs, adoption agencies, benefit agencies, etc. ad naseum to establish that in each case "yes folks, civil unions are the same thing HERE too." It's not logical to put the country through that when the simplest answer is to give these people the same protection everyone else has just by lifting the ban on marriage. The social pressures to marry, well....there's the problem. Of course gay couples feel them....but it's more than that, because granting the title of "marriage" to a gay union implies they deserve the same social acceptance as "hetero" couples. They don't see themselves as different (nor do I, for that matter), but the people who resist sharing their instutuion need social affirmation that homosexuals _are_ different. And both sides are right insofar as extending this social status to gay marriages is going to be a step towards allowing them into our precious concept of what's normal. It thrills some, scares others, and has propelled us into another age of social change and education. The only thing we can do is keep talking about it...and thank the brave people who force us to have this issue in front of our eyes as much as possible. However they choose to do it, civil disobenience is civil disobedience....and laws frequently get broken.

I'm not going to go into what makes a gay person gay here...there's too much, and this is already far too long. God knows if you're still reading I owe you a beer. But here's my problem...the constitution was intentionally written to be as inclusive as possible in its era. We've gone through several waves of broadening in this country, admitting that our founding fathers didn't get the details right the first time. But boy oh boy did they get the basic principle right....all citizens have the same rights. For better or worse, none of us are special, and there should be no second class citizens. By that logic, because the gay communities are good, tax paying Americans...they already have the right to marry. They're just demanding that right be enforced.

And honestly, I think it will be. Eventually. And my kids will be just as amazed as I was to learn that racial segregation was ever considered normal...or as my mom was to learn that people used to think that women couldn't handle money or be trusted to vote.

Much more than my 2cents. Sorry...it's been building up for a while.

[Belial]

Very well articulated, Ginger. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it :)

*hugs*

[GingerV]

Thanks Bel....I officially owe you a drink ;). Let me know when you'll be by to collect.

[Lilith]

There was a time in this country that it was believed that people of different races or religions should not be permitted to marry. But we evolved.

[Irish]

I will not give my personal views here,but I will say that if you don't like the laws,CHANGE THEM.I'm not one that believes in every law.As you probably know,I'm the one that always says that nothing is illegal unless you get caught doing it.If a law,is fair
or not,is not the main question.It is the law & therefore gives you a record if you break it.Changing the law,isn't instantaneous(sp?),
but it can be done.It should be considered! Irish
P.S.Also,my $.02.

[BamaKyttn]

>claps for Ginger<

[axe31]

slipery slope if the law is to resrict my freedoms to say that
my rights dont count is dangerous what next out law interatial
relationships or maybe only allow gays to live in areas you
want only sit at the back on the bus only have certain type of jobs or even beter make us wear a brand so you know who we are hell just stick us in a camp so you wont have to deal with us at all . freedom has to include every one or is is not freedom
:mad:

[Lilith]

Originally posted by axe31
... freedom has to include every one or it is not freedom
:mad:

truer words have not been spoken here

[HarleyRider6769]

Originally posted by Belial
Oh, and for that guy who used the phrase "liberal media" - can you name for me any major media corporations run by liberals? Because, off the top of my head, I can't think of any, and believe me, I tried. Gee Lets see How about ABC , NBC and CBS , Do you ever hear of Gov't Abuse on any of these News Programs , Like The I.R.S. Kicking in the Door of a 70 yr old man in B'Ham Al ,At 0300 All dressed up in their SWAT gear and Giving him a Major Heart Attack , Why did they do this welll it seems He had not Payed his Taxes cuz He had rather buy his Heart meds....Lot of good it did him Huh . Or the fact that the BATF kicked open the Door Of a Man Named Ironicly "Justice" Because Someone had said that He had automatic weapons in his house , BTW they found none and Oh yes He was at work and they The Gov't Thugs left the door open with all his weapons laying out and their were kids playing in the street and the yards , now tell me whom would have been responsable if those kids had gotten some of the weapons and killed some one ? You know I find it all to funny that Liberals and People from other Countrys Like to tell us How we are suppose to live , Yet don't have the "SACK" to do anything about the problems... Hey but wait G.W. hasn't bombed any asprin Factories to get the press off his Whoreing , And Lets see What About the Liberal "GOD" Clinton not signing a ban on partial birth Abortions....BTW to get back on the Subject of this Thread.... If it is against the Religious teachings Why should a Preist , Minister or the like Be forced to Break the Religious Doctron to Marry Gays ? All you Liberals need to read the Constition ya Know Religious Freedom..The Gov't can't force their Anti Religious views on ya .

[Lilith]

It has never been suggested anywhere, that I have heard, for the government to force religious institutions to recognize any unions regardless of gender. Countless people are married without the benefit of clergy everyday. This is not about religious freedom it's about the rights of Americans to have their families and partnerships recognized.

[HarleyRider6769]

Do You Really Believe the Media Only report what the People want to Hear ? Now I would Love to "Hear" the truth about WACO , Ruby Ridge , The Bombing In Oklahoma . But They "Media" don't tell what really happened Like the Fact that if the Gov't wanted to Get Korech without trouble why didn't they just wait till he went to breakfast in town just like he did nearly every morning ? Why was the Press there at the Compound when the Gov't went in ? Hummm Did the Gov't want America see what it was doing to it's citizens? or did they want to see if they could justify the Armed invasion of it citizens Homes...BTW where were all the Liberals and ACLU types When The Branch Dividians Cival rights were being Violated "Freedom of Religion" Oh and where were all these Fully Automatic weapons They were suppose to Have ? Where were all the Liberals when Randy Weaver 's Wife was Murdered By and F.B.I. Assisan and His son shot in the back..At Ruby Ridge? I could go on but then I would be Labeled as a Gun Nut or some assine shit like that .

The America People are Sheep !! Bahh Bahh Bahh

[HarleyRider6769]

I have a Friend who Lives In Vermont He Is a priest , afew Years ago when Vt. made Gay marrage Legal I asked Him if He would Marry Gays He told me that under the Law he would have too but would not , even if it meant Him going to Jail , It is against his Church Teachings ,and He was taught that Homosexuality was and abomation in the eyes of God . So yes It is a Religious matter of Gov't telling a Religion what to do .

[Lilith]

Priests and other clergy can refuse to marry anyone and do so. It is not legislated now and in my opinion, never will be. If a denomination decides to have their clergy marry gays as the United Methodists have battled doing, then a clergy of that group would have a problem, not with a government but with his/her own church.

[Lilith]

I respect everyone's rights to feel exactly how they do about this issue but I can not be silent when people I care about are told that their feelings, families, and relationships are of no/ or lesser value.

It's not something we are going to come to agreement on anytime soon, not here at our beloved Pixies or in America. I respect everyone who has spoken up and responded to this thread so respectfully, regardless of the stance you have taken. Thanks!

[HarleyRider6769]

I really don't care what someone does in the Bed Room , I just don't want it forced on me or mine that some practices are OK . I am not the one who has to answer for what "Others" do but I am the One Responsable for the Moral teaching of My Children as to what is right and wrong , I have Gay friends while I do not condone what they do I do not Judge them , I do not allow them to Bring it to my home . Nor do I allow my other friends who drink to excess or do drugs to bring it into my home either . IMHO I think most of America feels the same way , and I think this is what all this is really about .

[south]

This country would be way better off, if we as a nation judged and discriminated people on the basis of who they hated, rather than who they love..
I still don't see the reason for not extending these rights to every citizen of the United States. I know that there are qualifications and restrictions for every right we have. This issue is no different. But why change the law to deny these rights rather than to allow these rights?
Still with all of this collective discussion no one in this thread has yet to really answer that question "does marriage need to be defended?"
If it does need to be protected against what and why?
What will happen to marriage if we let homosexuals have the right?
Will it diminish your life in any way?
Will there be a great harm brought to society?

I understand discriminating against things for the greater good… for instance I really don’t think blind people should be given the right to drive. But why not let people who love each other declare that bond?

[Irish]

Does that mean that people,who are BLINDLY in love,can't drive?
Irish

[SuzyQ]

Please send me my beer, too, GingerV

[SuzyQ]

And yes we have both sides of the issue in Canada..but we seem to be more gentle about it.

[GingerV]

Suzy, there's a pub on every frigging corner of this town....let me know when you're coming by and I'll pay up in your choice of establishment ;). Thanks for reading.

[HarleyRider6769]

Let me clear up one Important fact in your Post You said there was a Time when Blacks could not Vote in this Country...It was not only Blacks but "ANYONE" Who did not own land , Whites included .

Tell me If not to Have Kids , Why get married in the first Place , It's only a piece of Paper . If you Love and care for someone , what does that have to do with a piece of Paper....If it's a Legal matter like Having you Partner get your money ect. when you die thats what wills are for . It has been said that Religion will not be forced to perform Marrages........In this Law suit Happy Land we all live in do you really believe that........Hell We are Having Gun Mfg, sued for some Puss nutted prick killing someone . Now Explain that , and then tell me that Some Gays who a Minister refused to Marry will not sue if for No other reason than to make news .

It was said that Insurance Co. don't want Gays to Marry . Why? What does that Have to do with the Price of Tea in China , If the Company you work for does not have insurance then find you a new Job , I can not speak for everyone but Thats one of the things I look for In a Company before I take a Job , The Benifits , Insurance , 401 , Stock Options Profit Shareing .

[Belial]

Originally posted by HarleyRider6769
Do You Really Believe the Media Only report what the People want to Hear ? Now I would Love to "Hear" the truth about WACO , Ruby Ridge , The Bombing In Oklahoma . But They "Media" don't tell what really happened Like the Fact that if the Gov't wanted to Get Korech without trouble why didn't they just wait till he went to breakfast in town just like he did nearly every morning ? Why was the Press there at the Compound when the Gov't went in ? Hummm Did the Gov't want America see what it was doing to it's citizens? or did they want to see if they could justify the Armed invasion of it citizens Homes...BTW where were all the Liberals and ACLU types When The Branch Dividians Cival rights were being Violated "Freedom of Religion" Oh and where were all these Fully Automatic weapons They were suppose to Have ? Where were all the Liberals when Randy Weaver 's Wife was Murdered By and F.B.I. Assisan and His son shot in the back..At Ruby Ridge? I could go on but then I would be Labeled as a Gun Nut or some assine shit like that .

The America People are Sheep !! Bahh Bahh Bahh
I don't quite understand how the mainstream media's lack of coverage on those issues equates to a liberal alignment. Where were the liberals on Waco? They were showing footage on public access cable that served as a rather searing indictment of the government and its authorities. I may be in my early 20s but I remember Waco. As for Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge I have no idea, I'm not familiar with those incidents, but I'll look them up.

It's important to remember, however, that liberalism is not defined by the actions of certain organizations that are in someone's estimation, "liberal". Just because the ACLU doesn't take up a cause (or so it may appear) doesn't mean that no liberals care.

[Belial]

Originally posted by HarleyRider6769
Gee Lets see How about ABC , NBC and CBS , Do you ever hear of Gov't Abuse on any of these News Programs , Like The I.R.S. Kicking in the Door of a 70 yr old man in B'Ham Al ,At 0300 All dressed up in their SWAT gear and Giving him a Major Heart Attack , Why did they do this welll it seems He had not Payed his Taxes cuz He had rather buy his Heart meds....Lot of good it did him Huh . Or the fact that the BATF kicked open the Door Of a Man Named Ironicly "Justice" Because Someone had said that He had automatic weapons in his house , BTW they found none and Oh yes He was at work and they The Gov't Thugs left the door open with all his weapons laying out and their were kids playing in the street and the yards , now tell me whom would have been responsable if those kids had gotten some of the weapons and killed some one ? You know I find it all to funny that Liberals and People from other Countrys Like to tell us How we are suppose to live , Yet don't have the "SACK" to do anything about the problems... Hey but wait G.W. hasn't bombed any asprin Factories to get the press off his Whoreing , And Lets see What About the Liberal "GOD" Clinton not signing a ban on partial birth Abortions....BTW to get back on the Subject of this Thread.... If it is against the Religious teachings Why should a Preist , Minister or the like Be forced to Break the Religious Doctron to Marry Gays ? All you Liberals need to read the Constition ya Know Religious Freedom..The Gov't can't force their Anti Religious views on ya .
I'd have thought that if the media weren't covering governmental abuse that'd make them more conservative than liberal, no?

No, GW hasn't bombed asprin factories to get the press off of his whoring, but he did bomb 2 countries, which some might argue served to get the press off of a few percieved incompetencies. And who's calling Clinton a "god"?

[Belial]

Originally posted by HarleyRider6769
I really don't care what someone does in the Bed Room , I just don't want it forced on me or mine that some practices are OK . I am not the one who has to answer for what "Others" do but I am the One Responsable for the Moral teaching of My Children as to what is right and wrong , I have Gay friends while I do not condone what they do I do not Judge them , I do not allow them to Bring it to my home . Nor do I allow my other friends who drink to excess or do drugs to bring it into my home either . IMHO I think most of America feels the same way , and I think this is what all this is really about .
No one is forced to believe that a given practice is okay just because it's legal.

[HarleyRider6769]

By the Press "NOT" Talking about the Gov't abuse IS Liberal . They (Press) Never tell the Whole truth , They Only tell what the Gov't will allow....Now some will ask How the Gov't Can and does control what is put out By the Media . If a News Group starts putting too much Heat on a point , They are veiled threats of FCC pulling their License , or Audits By the IRS .
When was the Last time you Heard of someone using a Gun for good in the Press ?
It is said By the Media That Guns are the Leading cause of Death in Kids............Not true , Auto wrecks are , guns are something like 4th .

Ruby Ridge and Randy Weaver , Happened a few years back , Randy was set upon by the FBI and BATF , on a trumped up charge of selling a Illegal shot gun to a Undercover agent , (Later ruled to be entrapment)He was being forced to "SPY" on a group he used to be a member of (White Seperatest) He told the Gov't to stick it in their Ass ,So the Gov't Set their attack dogs on Him .And the FBI was given order to Go to His Home without a Warrent and were told to Shoot any male carrying a weapon , Randy's son and Brother-in-Law were out on their property when the dog that was with them caught the FBI agents and the U.S> Martials and FBI Agents Fired and Killed the Dog , And also Shot and Killed Randys son after he fired on them...Now you might say they fired in self Defence but the FBI were there Illegally. and so there was a Stand off that lasted I believe Two weeks , A FBI sniper and I use that term Loosely Fired and Killed Randy's Wife Vickey while She was Holding a Baby , He Shot Her in the Head from 100 yrds and He claimed He was shooting at Randy who was aproxmatly 20 feet to her right , I do not know How much you Know of shooting but Thats Impossable at 100 yrds you will not miss 20 feet left or right , He hit where He was Aiming .

[HarleyRider6769]

Originally posted by Belial
No one is forced to believe that a given practice is okay just because it's legal. You Miss the Point , I do not believe Homosexuality is OK , and I will not allow My kids to be made to think it is , By allowing Gay marrage it is OKing a Life style that , Is wrong . I am not a Religious Person But I do Believe in the Bible , It is in Numerious Places the Homosexuality is an Abomanation to God , Ever Heard Of Sodom And Gomora .

[Loulabelle]

Originally posted by HarleyRider6769

Tell me If not to Have Kids , Why get married in the first Place , It's only a piece of Paper . If you Love and care for someone , what does that have to do with a piece of Paper.

That's a good question - what does love have to do with a piece of paper? Not much. And nor is it compulsory to marry even to have children, so why does anyone do it?

Could it be that, as vulnerable and insecure individuals, we crave the reassurance that the person we care most about in the world is as committed to us, as we are to them? Is it that we want to show our children, our friends and family the strength of that commitment in some kind of ritualised ceremony (religious or otherwise). Well judging by the fact that, marriage is pretty much present in every single culture of the world in some form or other, I'd make a guess that it does come from that personal need for emotional security.

So my question is, to those who are against the idea of gay marriage, why do you think gay people don't have this same need?

I'm not sure what the answer to that will be, but I can't help but feel that there are a lot of people out there in the world, who are so hung up on the actual acts of homosexual sex, that they almost forget that gay people are thinking, feeling, emotional beings who have all the same insecurities, fears, wants and needs as heterosexuals.

[Belial]

Originally posted by HarleyRider6769
You Miss the Point , I do not believe Homosexuality is OK , and I will not allow My kids to be made to think it is , By allowing Gay marrage it is OKing a Life style that , Is wrong . I am not a Religious Person But I do Believe in the Bible , It is in Numerious Places the Homosexuality is an Abomanation to God , Ever Heard Of Sodom And Gomora .
No, I got your point. Teach your kids that a) Tolerance does not amount to approval, and b) Legislation does not have to control anyone's personal views or values. Do those two things and you have no problem.

[Belial]

Originally posted by HarleyRider6769
By the Press "NOT" Talking about the Gov't abuse IS Liberal . They (Press) Never tell the Whole truth , They Only tell what the Gov't will allow....Now some will ask How the Gov't Can and does control what is put out By the Media . If a News Group starts putting too much Heat on a point , They are veiled threats of FCC pulling their License , or Audits By the IRS .
When was the Last time you Heard of someone using a Gun for good in the Press ?
It is said By the Media That Guns are the Leading cause of Death in Kids............Not true , Auto wrecks are , guns are something like 4th .

Ruby Ridge and Randy Weaver , Happened a few years back , Randy was set upon by the FBI and BATF , on a trumped up charge of selling a Illegal shot gun to a Undercover agent , (Later ruled to be entrapment)He was being forced to "SPY" on a group he used to be a member of (White Seperatest) He told the Gov't to stick it in their Ass ,So the Gov't Set their attack dogs on Him .And the FBI was given order to Go to His Home without a Warrent and were told to Shoot any male carrying a weapon , Randy's son and Brother-in-Law were out on their property when the dog that was with them caught the FBI agents and the U.S> Martials and FBI Agents Fired and Killed the Dog , And also Shot and Killed Randys son after he fired on them...Now you might say they fired in self Defence but the FBI were there Illegally. and so there was a Stand off that lasted I believe Two weeks , A FBI sniper and I use that term Loosely Fired and Killed Randy's Wife Vickey while She was Holding a Baby , He Shot Her in the Head from 100 yrds and He claimed He was shooting at Randy who was aproxmatly 20 feet to her right , I do not know How much you Know of shooting but Thats Impossable at 100 yrds you will not miss 20 feet left or right , He hit where He was Aiming .

Okay, so let's assume that the media is acting in the government's interests. Do you honestly believe the current US government is liberal?

[south]

Yikes!
If the issue is going to reduce down to Homosexuality is wrong and an threat to our society, which is what I get from the posts of HarleyRider769, should the bigger issue be where should we deport those fags to? And how do we stop them from multiplying?

I don't see how if we afford this group most all human rights and pass a law like the "Hate Crime" laws to continue to punish people more harshly for committing crimes against Homosexuals and others. Why do we draw the line at marriage?

Homosexuals are allowed to raise children, for that matter to birth children, to vote to own property jointly geeeez to do a lot of stuff, that just does not make sense in the minds of some people. Yet we as a society do afford them some rights.

As a society we have moved homosexuality away from the margins, out of the closet and more to the mainstream…and exaclty what evil has happened to us?

For whatever reason, Nature or Nurture or some combination of the both, Homosexuality is a fact of being, it always has been and I imagine it always will be. From my what I have seen Homosexuality is not a choice that you simply change.

Obviously homosexuals are someone’s children. They are the brothers and sisters of normal everyday people. Their difference is generally not a choice but an imperative. .

This is not an issue about the media, liberal or otherwise, I have worked in TV and I can tell you the reason for television is to sell more products by getting better ratings. They will do what ever they can to increase ratings period. If you are paying attention to the mainstream media you are fool with the attention span of a high functioning third grader, which is exactly the level targeted by the media pundits. Why video of fire is more important than trying to explain just what the hell Alan Greenspan is actually saying.

[Loulabelle]

HarleyRider6769 - If you intend to teach your children that homosexuality is 'wrong', what will happen if one of your children turns out to be gay?

Don't you think that teaching your children this might damage them in some way if they do turn out to be homosexual?

Or do you believe that by teaching your children that homosexuality is wrong, that they somehow won't be 'at risk' of being gay? If so, I really think you need to learn more about how human sexuality works, because it's a little more complicated than that.

[HarleyRider6769]

Originally posted by Loulabelle
HarleyRider6769 - If you intend to teach your children that homosexuality is 'wrong', what will happen if one of your children turns out to be gay?

Don't you think that teaching your children this might damage them in some way if they do turn out to be homosexual?

Or do you believe that by teaching your children that homosexuality is wrong, that they somehow won't be 'at risk' of being gay? If so, I really think you need to learn more about how human sexuality works, because it's a little more complicated than that. I teach My Children what The Bible says , Now can you tell me where it says that Homosexuality is OK in the Bible Because I can tell you where it , says that it is not . Being Gay is a Life choice , If you Believe In God and the Bible it says that It is an Abomanation In the Eyes Of God....Now why would God create something that is an Abonation to Himself ?
As I have said I am not a Religious Person , But I do Follow the Bible as Best I can .

No I do not think Me Teaching My Kids that this or any other thing is wrong will Damage them , No More than teaching them Not to Lie , steal , cheat , kill , or any other of the things that are very Plainly spelled out as wrong in the Bible .

[GingerV]

Head + Wall = Ouch

[Lilith]

Originally posted by GingerV
Head + Wall = Ouch

^10

[HarleyRider6769]

Originally posted by GingerV
Head + Wall = Ouch Yes That usually Happens when Liberals Meet the truth and the flaws in their thinking are pointed out . But as Scarlett Says " Oh Fiddle Dee Dee There is Always Tommorrow"

[GingerV]

Wow.

My comment was in reference to how the entire conversation was going in circles.

Buy hey, Harley wants to take it personally and get nasty about it. That's his/her option....but it's definately my cue to leave the thread.

I'm off to perv....send any beer claims to me PM.

[Lilith]

I understood that to be your point GingerV. That was why I raised it to the tenth.

Each side of this issue have their points to make and as long as people can discuss it respectfully it's all good. I picture it like two circles actually. Those who believe Gays should have the exact same rights as all other Americans are afforded and those who believe gay marriage is not a right. Hopefully when the two circles converge upon each other we get a Venn diagram :D with some agreement and consensus in the center. Otherwise we can talk all over eachother but no one is listening and nothing is accomplished by the dialogue.

[lakritze]

Truth is that liberals have never met the truth and had the "flaws" of our thinking pointed out by the right wing.Our views have been totally MISREPRESENTED by the right. If you want to kow what liberals think about any given subject,ASK A LIBERAL...Not LIEmbaugh,Reagan,Bush (papa or baby) or anybody else that has an interest in telling you lies. As for the Bible,how do you interpret what is left up to so many interpretations?You only have to see what this current administration is doing throughout the world to see how far they are from the teachings of Jesus.As for gays,I have no problem with them.Many of my friends past and present are gay.Like the civil rights movement and the woman's liberation movement before them,gays only want to be reassured that they won't become a scapegoat for an ever increasing Fascist bunch of lying SOB's in the future.GOD IS NOT A REPUBLICAN...but can I say the same for the politics of the devil?

[Lilith]

Demonizing people, any people, is not productive. It's how this whole mess got started.

[Aqua]

Originally posted by HarleyRider6769
You Miss the Point , I do not believe Homosexuality is OK , and I will not allow My kids to be made to think it is , By allowing Gay marrage it is OKing a Life style that , Is wrong . I am not a Religious Person But I do Believe in the Bible , It is in Numerious Places the Homosexuality is an Abomanation to God , Ever Heard Of Sodom And Gomora .
Well I am a religious person and I ask you this...

Ever heard of Jesus?

He teaches us to love thy neighbor, but love your enemy as well. When asked what the most important commandment was He answered, "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is NO other commandment GREATER than these." There is no asterisk there with a note at the bottom of the page reading 'except for the following people...' It is all inclusive.

No I do not think Me Teaching My Kids that this or any other thing is wrong will Damage them , No More than teaching them Not to Lie , steal , cheat , kill , or any other of the things that are very Plainly spelled out as wrong in the Bible .
The things you just mentioned can directly harm another person. Homosexuality does not. There is a huge difference between murder and loving someone of the same sex. It has been my experience that many that oppose homosexuality are transfixed on the sexual act instead of what these people do with the other 99% of their lives.

Let me clear up one Important fact in your Post You said there was a Time when Blacks could not Vote in this Country...It was not only Blacks but "ANYONE" Who did not own land , Whites included .
Allow me to clear it up even further... Whites males, landowning or not, were all allowed to vote AND given equal access to public facilities before blacks were. In 1965 President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act which pledged Federal enforcement of equal access to voting ballots, particularly in the south because they were not being allowed to vote even though they had that right.

I wrap up this post with a request in the interest of maintaining civil discussion in this thread. This thread is not about the things you hate about liberals, so please refrain from the off topic attacks on everything from the media to Ruby Ridge.

[Scarecrow]

A queston for all of you who have read and understand the Bible.


Where does it state in the Bible that nudity is sinful???

[Lilith]

Oh crap^^^^^^

I'm a sinner:D














but you guys knew that:p


No where that I have read Scarecrow...

[Aqua]

No where that I have read either... But nudity can cause covetous feelings and therein lies the sin.

[Lilith]

<~~~~covets^^^ occasionally:D

[axe31]

shal not lie with a man as you do a woman or some thing
like that is the line all anti gay groups use from the bible
the same set of rules say women can not wear any thing
red no pork and other things to even thou these are not only
from the old tesdiment these rules are for a diferant religion
of the jewish nation

[lakritze]

Following strict Kosher laws,a cheese burger would be a no-no.Pork would be unthinkable and shell fish,(some of my favourite) would be an enjoyment denied.The old testament was full of laws and demands that now seem quite unimaginable.It could be that the then tribal elders embellished and that the old testament was a recorded history of their lives.Jesus recinded the strict Kosher laws for his followers leaving only the mixing of meat and blood to be denied.Funny,every culture has it's style of "blutwurst"but nobody gives a second thought to the biblical passage when eating it.For the modern day Christian to pour over the O.T. trying to find the passages to support their fears and to memorize verses as 20 second sound bites,is counter productive in my opinion.Especially when the teachings of The Christ seems to be omitted all together. Wouldn't an omnipresent God be much greater than the sum total of all our fears?

[nikanik]

Originally posted by SuzyQ
I am bi, and am mostly happily married to a heterosexual man, I I am Canadian and we have the same struggle, but I pose a question. If we decide that marraige between same sex couples is ok, how about brother and sister, father and daughter, etc? Are we discriminating if we don't allow those either? And as far as I know they are NOT allowed in Canada. Don't know about the States.

Love,

Susan


In Georgia it is legal to marry a cousin. But as far as this Goes being a church loving PK on a number of religious associations myself. and after many many arguements with my dad about it I still dont see nothing wrong with same sexz couples. And to talk about crazy Bush's own Vice Mr. Cheny (where the fuck is he anyway?) daughter is a card carrying get them the conservative gay vote in the stolen election of 2000 Lesbian. Has anyone wondered why Cheney hasnt said word one about this idiotic bull!

And to say get a will and leave it to your partner. Wills can be contested and held up in courts for years. Power of attorney can be stripped if you are comatose, So there would be ways for parents could leave your partner out if they wanted too. For whatever reason they might hace

I am off of my soap box now. Thank you and good night.

[HarleyRider6769]

Please Point Out in "ANY" of my posts where I said I Hated Gays . Yes I have Heard Of Jesus I believe He said something About Love the Person But Hate the Sin .
As to My Posts about Liberals and Ruby Ridge A Question was asked of How Liberals Media Is pushing this and I was responding to That , a Question was also asked About Pointing Out which Media groups were Liberal , I believe I did that and pointed out How they were .

Now as a Religious Person Please tell me How you can condon Homosexuality , I am not being Hostile Just wondering .

[HarleyRider6769]

Originally posted by lakritze
Truth is that liberals have never met the truth and had the "flaws" of our thinking pointed out by the right wing.Our views have been totally MISREPRESENTED by the right. If you want to kow what liberals think about any given subject,ASK A LIBERAL...Not LIEmbaugh,Reagan,Bush (papa or baby) or anybody else that has an interest in telling you lies. As for the Bible,how do you interpret what is left up to so many interpretations?You only have to see what this current administration is doing throughout the world to see how far they are from the teachings of Jesus.As for gays,I have no problem with them.Many of my friends past and present are gay.Like the civil rights movement and the woman's liberation movement before them,gays only want to be reassured that they won't become a scapegoat for an ever increasing Fascist bunch of lying SOB's in the future.GOD IS NOT A REPUBLICAN...but can I say the same for the politics of the devil? I have asked Liberals thier views On subjects From Gun control to Welfare and I have seen the flaws in their logic . and Pointed them out . We could discuss it here But I am afraid we would upset some people . If you would like you can Email me ..same name @ hotmail and I would Love to engage in a excange of Ideas . We Both may come away with a better understanding .

[HarleyRider6769]

Originally posted by GingerV
Wow.

My comment was in reference to how the entire conversation was going in circles.

Buy hey, Harley wants to take it personally and get nasty about it. That's his/her option....but it's definately my cue to leave the thread.

I'm off to perv....send any beer claims to me PM. Please Tell me when or How I got Nasty ? I have been told before I am Insensitive But don't see any place I was out of line or Nasty.

[Lilith]

Sure thing~ check your PMs!

[south]

If you love the sinner but hate the sin....where is the sin in loving?
BTW...
I support the NRA!!!
I detest Rush!!
If we try to label everything we are going to need a new dictionary to figure exactly what to call all the shades of gray.

[BamaKyttn]

okay damn I'm stopping at page 7 of nine b/c I'm damn pissed off at that harley dude.


HarleyRider: you cited the bible...... YAY for you, stand for something or you will fall.... into the pits of hell or somethin like that.

it's really too bad that the bible can't be updated like our constitution you know because some shit is outdated, (btw hope you know that jesus wasn't a christian, and he also didn't speak in thee and thou even though King James says he did......) The main reason I feel that the story tellers included the sodom tale... and the whole masturbation is a sin ( which it is..... the bible does say not to spill your seed upon the ground.....) is because they didn't want The People to die out. look at homosexuality as a semi effective birth control.

The bible says don't fuck within you gender
The bible says don't fuck animals
The bible says don't spill your seed on the ground like heathens ( I guess that only applies to men ehehehehe)

It was only to keep the race alive. like others have said before me evolve, progress. And don't hide behind a bunch (not being anti-semetic or whatever) of drunk jews oral traditions in a story book.


Always contraversial and about to finish reading the thread
Kyttn

[Ranger1930]

I don't want to get into this but i must add in light of my own interests... i am againest gay and lesbian marriages.. not because of religion but because i think it is socialbly not acceptable.. a man and a woman are MEANT to be together its Obvious.. now if you dont want to be with the other sex that is your choice and no one has the right to be againest you on it.. but that doesnt mean we have to like it.

And just to clear it up no Jesus was not christian, Christianity was founded on the beliefs he formed in other peoples minds.. Jesus himself was jewish. oh bama hon.. you are semi right he didnt say thee our thou because he didnt speak english he spoke hebrew like the rest of the people living in jerusalem.

was thinking about this earlier tonight. i think it was a bad idea on Bush's part to annouce this idea so close to reelections he is obviously going to lose alot of votes becase of this.. And of course it will never get passed so i don't see why anyone is worried.

personally Lilith i think this topic needs to be closed in the good interests of everyone at this site...

[Irish]

As I have said before,anytime that anything to do with politics or
religion,is discussed,it always causes bad feelings,between the
members,because others views differ from your own.Therefore,
again,I suggest,not bringing up these subjects.
"Anger is the wind,that blows out the light of the mind"
I originally joined pixies for relaxation & to get away from it all.
Lately it is turning into one BIG argument.Whatever happened to
helping each other? Irish
P.S.Just my $.02.

[BamaKyttn]

but Irish we are helping! >big grin<


Ranger I was being a smartass babe you know how I am. I'm just showing my catholic education! I don't want to get "married" I just want a legal union. hell a common law union is good enough for me! I was taught he spoke aramaic..... oh well old nuns make mistakes...

[WildIrish]

Originally posted by Scarecrow
Come on ppl its all about the MONEY, big companies do not want to pay for the benifits and the government does not want the SS or income tax break burden.


That's absolutely true. And they won't pay it. They'll pass it along to us in the form of reduced benefits and layoffs. Not saying it's right, just what will happen.

Blaming the "liberal media" is as expected during Conservative years as blaming the "vast right wing consipiracy" is during the Liberal years, don't you think? The truth is somewhere in between.

[Loulabelle]

For the record - The Bible also says 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone', so perhaps those who try to live by the Bible, should think twice before judging others for their 'sins'.

Also, as BamaKyttn hinted, the Bible was written by people, not God, and I'm sure, as in every other historical account, it was influenced by politics, social issues and other forms of bias.

Also, by the way, the Ancient Romans and Greeks were bisexual as a matter of course (hmm....weren't they around at approximately the same time as Jesus?) however they frowned on exclusive homosexuality as it did not result in the procreation of children. This seems to tie in well with the rules about conanism, contraception etc.

All I can say is thank God, there are a lot of people in the world who do not follow the Bible to the letter, otherwise, there would be a huge population explosion, and STDs of all kinds would be rife.

End of rant. :)

[Aqua]

Originally posted by Irish
I originally joined pixies for relaxation & to get away from it all.
Lately it is turning into one BIG argument.Whatever happened to
helping each other? Irish
P.S.Just my $.02.
I hear you Irish, and I agree. Lately most of my posts have been in threads heavy with debate. Mostly this one. It's not what I come to Pixies for so I'm heading over to the threads that lift me and lay light on my heart. There are plenty of other places on the web for heated debate. Right now, I think I'll start perusing the 4 L's of Pixies... Lilith, Lou, Lixy, and LSharni. :p (Ok, I cheated... so sue me.... :D How could I not include Sharni?)

[south]

I am starting to be sorry that I asked the question.
However as of this post there has not been a concrete reason given for the need to defend marriage.
Naturally we have inferred that the issue is about sex be it a man with a man or a woman with a woman. It is my experience that marriage is really more about partnership. There is the old joke about the first year of marriage where you stick a bean in a jar for every time you have sex during the first year and after that remove a bean and the expectation is that you most likely will not empty the jar. While this may be extreme, most anyone who is married will agree that after a while sex is not the driving force for the relationship.
So really what is this defensive stuff all about?

Here is an additional comment, which I pose only because I don’t like the descriptor “marriage” for Homosexual unions. What are the components of a homosexual marriage to be formally called…. Husbands? Wives? Spousal Units?

[Lilith]

I call my husband my partner sometimes.

[Irish]

This shows why everyone should follow.the Irish Bible.
As of May 1,I will be married for 39yrs & there are still alot of beans in my jar! Irish
Aqua---I'm starting to agree with you!I have discussed that,with
my wife many times!

[having_fun]

Wow, I never realized that there were so many people at pixies that were soooooo far out in the left wing.

Folks, this really is a no-brainer....

a) Marriage is by definition the union between a man and a woman. If we are going to allow gay couples to change the meaning of the word marriage, I want the meaning of children changed to include pets, so I can claim them on my taxes.

b) Discrimination is illegal, and unjust. Therefore, as proposed a civil union will hold the same legal weight as marriage. It will provide for and force your employer to give your benefits to your significant other, and also provide legislation for divorce, to include division of properties, and alimony.

c) How in the world did this issue become a Bush bashing. He stated his opinion, which I agree with. I might point out that an overwhelming percentage of Americans feel the same way.

d) It appears to me that the root of this issue is not when or how gay couples will get equal treatment regarding significant others, but an election year issue to get people stirred up in hopes of taking some of the votes away from Bush. Each American should drop to their knees and thank whomever they believe in, for George Bush being our President at this time in history. If many of those far left wingers had their way, Gore would be the Pres, and we would have a president more interested in tree hugging, bowing to foreign nations, and one world government, than keeping the sorry assed liberals safe to do all the bitching they want.

e) It seems to me that the true fight should be to gain equal rights under the law, regardless of what the lawmakers choose to call it. The resources, and efforts of thousands of gay rights activists should be redirected away from the marriage issue, and focused on the equal rights issue.

F) Aqua, I’m not sure which America you live in, but here in the good ole USA, the major media outlets, TV, Radio, and Newspapers are almost all extremely liberal. Next, according to leading economists across the country, the economy and unemployment is on a 7 year effect cycle. That means that what happened 7 years ago has the greatest impact on the current status of economics and unemployment. Next, No WMD have been found… ha ha… Because of liberalism, Bush was forced to wait 2 years before actually getting to look for them, all the time we were telling Sadam we were coming looking for them. Now in my humble opinion, he could have really hidden them well in 2 years. But the liberals always seem for forget that point.

[WildIrish]

<--- ducks!

[Lilith]

<~~~~gooses:D



Am I in the right game???

[skipthisone]

Anyone in this thread want to do me bad?

[WildIrish]

Originally posted by Lilith
<~~~~gooses:D



Am I in the right game???


How could you goosing me not be right?

[south]

take this thread to OZ! or I'll click my heels!!
There is no place like home, there is no place like home.
....another “Friend of Dorothy”?

[Ranger1930]

No one Ever said you should listen to the media in America.. as most everyone will agree thats the root of this countrys biggest problems.. listening to other people bitch and moaning about something. personally i think if people spoke what they felt was their views and what they truely felt instead of listening to some jack ass who barely knows what the hell he or she is talking about and just agreeing.. there wouldnt be so many damned retarded issues..

im sorry to go off like that.. but if your going to sit here and say we need to listen to what they fucking TV tells us we need to do... your very wrong..

shit if i listened to what the TV told me to do this winter i'd havel ike 10 gallons of bad milk in the fridge 50 gallons of water in the basement and i' be buried up to my knees in Bread.. Eliza and lixy can both agree with me on that one heheh.. god damn idiot meterologists think they know how the weather will affect me =/

[Sharni]

Originally posted by south
Should same sex domestic partners be made to have the same rights and responsibilities that we as a society hold to heterosexual couples?
To answer this original question

Yep for sure!

As to my reasoning behind that...well as people seem to be getting a wee bit heated about it...i'll just be keeping that to myself :)

[Loren]

Originally posted by having_fun
Wow, I never realized that there were so many people at pixies that were soooooo far out in the left wing.

Left wing?? I'm libertarian, not liberal.

Folks, this really is a no-brainer....

Yes, it's a no brainer--it should be permitted.

a) Marriage is by definition the union between a man and a woman. If we are going to allow gay couples to change the meaning of the word marriage, I want the meaning of children changed to include pets, so I can claim them on my taxes.

Marriage is between two people who love each other. No change.

b) Discrimination is illegal, and unjust. Therefore, as proposed a civil union will hold the same legal weight as marriage. It will provide for and force your employer to give your benefits to your significant other, and also provide legislation for divorce, to include division of properties, and alimony.

It's a *STATE* measure. As such it can't affect federal rules. If civil unions were all we had, my wife and I would not be together today.

c) How in the world did this issue become a Bush bashing. He stated his opinion, which I agree with. I might point out that an overwhelming percentage of Americans feel the same way.

Certainly not an overwhelming number.

d) It appears to me that the root of this issue is not when or how gay couples will get equal treatment regarding significant others, but an election year issue to get people stirred up in hopes of taking some of the votes away from Bush.

I don't think it started out as anything to do with the election, it's simply when it wound it's way through the courts. Bush, however, is using it as a means of bashing the Democrats.

F) Aqua, I’m not sure which America you live in, but here in the good ole USA, the major media outlets, TV, Radio, and Newspapers are almost all extremely liberal.

I'm not aware of *ANY* major media outlet that's extremely liberal. They vary from middle of the road to quite conservative.

The only liberal media I've seen is alternative stuff.

[Loren]

Flashback time, 1912:

http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/002111.html

A proposed constitutional amendmant banning inter-racial marriage.

[FussyPucker]

Originally posted by HarleyRider6769
Being Gay is a Life choice , If you Believe In God and the Bible it says that It is an Abomanation In the Eyes Of God....Now why would God create something that is an Abonation to Himself ?
As I have said I am not a Religious Person , But I do Follow the Bible as Best I can. Sorry to bring this topic back up to the top but I thought I'd just make a couple of points on the above quote......using a bit of science rather than using a book that could very well be the best selling piece of fiction ever written.

In a recent study of sheep.....yes sheep.....scientists wanted to find out if there was any physical difference between homosexual sheep and 'straight' sheep. It turns out that about 8% of domestic rams demonstrate homosexual tendencies I don't think it's a "life choice" and I'm sure if a 'God' created humans then he/she might have had a hand in sheep too.........anyway back to the results of the tests....

It turns out that sheep with a penchant for boy-on-boy action have smaller ovine sexually dimorphic nuclei (oSDNs) than their straight counterparts. these are nerve cells found in the hypothalamus and amoung other things are responsible for sexual behaviour. The sheep that prefer a good hard shag with a ewe have larger oSDNs packed with more neurons.

The guy leading the study (professor Charles Roselli) said:
"This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans. The hope is that the study of these brain differences will provide clues to the processes involved in the development of heterosexual, as well as homosexual behaviour."

Yes I know it's taking a bit of a leap to get from gay sheep to gay humans.

I guess there are two ways to interpret the information:
1. You're born gay and as you grow up your brain alters accordingly reducing the size of oSDNs.

2. You're not born gay but you become gay as you grow up because you have smaller oSDNs than a 'straight' person.

I'm sure those lovely men in the bright white coats will let us know more when they find out.

As for me..........I'm all for same sex marriages.

Ask yourself this.......
Why should a man and a woman be allowed to marry?
Do you suddenly become able to have children if you marry?
Does it suddenly stop you being able to 'be' with someone else?
Does it suddenly make you 'better' than everyone who isn't married?

or maybe....
It gives you some tax benefits. (well I think it used to here not so sure now)
It makes it easier to decide on the surname of your child(ren).
It makes a statement about how you feel about your partner.
It makes it easier to get rid of guys/girls trying to pick you up in a bar ("Sorry hun, I'm married!")
It's a great excuse for a party and a long sex filled holiday.

Well that's enough from me on this subject :D Apologies for typos and speeling mistakes I'm working and doing a crossword right now :D:D

[WildIrish]

Did someone say sheep? :D

[FussyPucker]

.....yes sheep..... :D

[WildIrish]

Now there's something we can all get behind!

[FussyPucker]

We will if I can have a hand in it!

[eliza261]

i agree with paprclphd

[nikanik]

Thank you fussy. Maybe now this will be the end of this thread. I know I have had my say in the matter but we should be like family and just say fuck the differences and love each other any way

[Oldfart]

Lord hasn't this rattled a few cages.

Marriage is a formal union of loving people, with different connotations

between cultures. Islam allows 4 wives, Solomon had 1000 and

someone else allows polyandry (multiple husbands).

If same sex marriages had the same divorce, spousal support,

child support (for IVF or adopted kids), and all the other obligations

cast during a heterosexual marriage, why not?

We don't have to like our neighbours, just be civil and keep the

peace.

I suspect we have a few rabble rousers pouring volotiles on the

fire just to keep the heat going.

Pixies is the most inclusive place I know, with a real sense of demanding

a "fair go" for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference

and if any of the discussion members of this thread are unhappy

with this, then maybe they're just in the wrong thread.

BTW, when these smoke-screen issues are brought forward

by the pollies, ask what they are hiding behind it. You won't like it.

[Lovediva]

Comical inter-mission :D


Daddy Long Legs


A father in San Antonio watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was.
Suddenly, she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.

"Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked.

"They're mating," her father replied.

"What do you call the spider on top, Daddy?" she asked.

"That's a Daddy Longlegs," her father answered.

"So, the other one is Mommy Longlegs?" the little girl asked.

"No," her father replied. "Both of them are Daddy Longlegs. "

The little girl thought for a moment, then she stomped both spidersflat and said, "Well, it might be okay in California, Vermont, and Massachusetts, but we're not having any of that crap in Texas!"

[Scarecrow]

TY Diva, for a very good laugh.

[Oldfart]

Diva,

Is that anything like a Canadian Goose?

[south]

Diva...
I will re-tell that one for sure.

[scotzoidman]

Originally posted by Oldfart
BTW, when these smoke-screen issues are brought forward

by the pollies, ask what they are hiding behind it. You won't like it. Once again, my old friend cuts right thru the BS to to the heart of the matter...I don't have to ask, the day they announced Bush's proposed amendment on the local news, it was preceded by news of a nearby manufacturing plant closing, putting hundreds of my fellow Tennesseans out of work...magicians call it deverting the audiences attention, don't they?

On a lighter note, I was amused by a statement someone made on V-H1 that years from now, straight people won't want to get married anymore because it's just so "gay".... :)

[WildIrish]

Originally posted by scotzoidman
magicians call it deverting the audiences attention, don't they?


Like bombing an aspirin factory the day Monica testifies. ha ha

[Oldfart]

Hey Scotzoidman,

Good to see you in the forums.

About bloody time, too.

[FussyPucker]

U.S. county bans all marriages
By Teresa Carson

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - In a new twist in the battle over same-sex marriage roiling the United States, a county in Oregon has banned all marriages -- gay and heterosexual -- until the state decides who can and who cannot wed.

The last marriage licences were handed out in Benton County at 4 p.m. local time on Tuesday. As of Wednesday, officials in the county of 79,000 people will begin telling couples applying for licenses to go elsewhere until the gay marriage debate is settled.

"It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally."

State Attorney General Hardy Myers said in a statement that he was "very pleased" with Benton County's decision. "It is my sincere hope that legal process will provide clarity for each of Oregon's counties."

The three County commissioners had originally decided to start handing out gay marriage licenses this week but on Monday reversed that decision amid a growing firestorm of lawsuits across the country, and decided instead to put a temporary halt to all marriages.

Rebekah Kassell, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, a pro-gay marriage group, told Reuters; "It is certainly a different way for county commissioners to respect their constitutional obligation to apply the law equally to everyone.

"We appreciate that they are willing to say they are not going to participate in discrimination."

....rest of story here.... http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040324/80/epbw5.html

[jseal]

FussyPucker,

Seems like a straightforward technique. Of course, I'm not waiting to get married.

Perhaps this will help move the courts and politicians forward more rapidly.