Bush promotes measure against gay marriage

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

For those who are against gay marriage, I must still ask a simple question that I have yet to see a real answer to: How exactly would it hurt your everyday life if gay marriage was passed?

 

Which is why I am in favour of gay marriages. The Bible is a moral code, not a legal one. I don't believe in legislating stuff based on morals. I do not agree with the gay lifestyle, but if you want to marry a member of the same sex, then that's your business and the government and everyone else should stay out of it.

[Justice 0]

Xias, do I know you? I could have sworn I've seen you around here before.

[Special K 0]

You know what pisses me off?

 

A) The amendment has some wording that makes it look very much like it would ban civil unions. That's some fucked-up shit.

 

B) Bush has to know this has zero chance to pass. He's just pushing it because it's a wedge issue.

 

I think the solution is to leave it to the state. I think the gay and lesbian community may end up actually setting itself back if they keep pushing the issue, though, seeing as the great majority of the US is against it. Go for civil unions first.

[Guest SP-1]

Xias --

 

A lack of historical evidence? The Bible is one of the most well documented amalgamations of historical documents in history. There's tons of historical information on how it was written. I'm not sure where you're getting that.

 

Paul's teachings are far from bigoted. He taught that it was wrong and to not do it, based on the teachings he personally received from the Lord, and by looking back to Old Testament laws that would still apply. To turn away from it. He didn't teach to go start beating gays up. There's a bit of a difference there. Paul's letters are littered with commands to love and be compassionate, but he never condoned sinful behavior of ANY kind. He hardly went on a rant about sexual immorality at every turn.

 

 

As for the changes in my friend, I have zero reason to doubt the genuine healing that has gone on in her. Having experienced the healing of the Lord myself in many areas, I know the difference between someone trying to hide their issues and having their issues genuinely dealt with. I would point out to you that not all gays have some miraculous healing experience. Some deal with it with the Lord on a daily basis as a "thorn in their side", as Paul described about some things even he was not healed of. The Lord's response in those situations is that His grace is sufficient. And it is. I know someone living out this scenario. He is neither depressed nor angry nor hurting. He does not suffer from "hiding himself", but rather trusts the Lord's activity because of His walk with the Lord in other areas. He is a healthy, happy, joyful member of my school's community, serving in leadership capacities. I have no reason to doubt his mental and emotional health. Considering the school community I live in is based and quite rooted in trust and friendship and genuine compassion and support for one another if we are suffering, and considering his completely open approach to His walk, I have zero reason to think he's suffering in any way by choosing to follow biblical teaching in this matter.

 

It's the same as with a physical illness or something else that the Lord may not heal. He has His reasons for things. My dad died when I was five. I can't be angry with God about that. God created the universe and knows what He's doing with it. Sometimes He heals miraculously, sometimes He doesn't. He's given us His inspired Word and He's given us His way to repent and resist the sins that entice us daily. Through Christ, we have the strength to resist sin if there isn't some huge miraculous thing that happens. Sometimes that's what is best for us. It draws us close to God and we rely on Him. And that's a far more fulfilling relationship than any other.

 

 

Personally, I cannot condone gay marriage. It is sin and goes against the way we are designed, the way we are created. It is a perversion to the natural order of things, and of things created by God for more pure and fulfilling purposes. Marriage is more than a simple word. It is more than legal rights. Marriage is a bond between man and woman in the eyes of GOD. It is a picture of Christ and the church and of God's compassion for mankind. It is deeper and higher and so much more than sex and tax breaks. Unfortunately, heterosexuals treat it as such perhaps more than homosexuals do. Both kinds of marriages are terrible. Marriage is spiritual, and was designed for a specific kind of union. I can condone nothing less. That means standing against gay marriage as much as pre-marital sex and marriages rooted in the wrong motivations. I speak out against all of those. It's bigger than the gay issue. Much bigger. And much deeper.

[Special K 0]

Let me preface this by saying I certainly respect your faith and am not attacking, but am asking. I am also fairly well-versed in catholicism, but have questions about it.

 

There is SIGNIFICANT evidence that being gay is determined by genetics. I'm not gay, so i can't speak for it, but I don't think I'd EVER want to have sex with a man. Why would anyone ever choose to A) go against their nature and B) endure the ridicule of others.

 

I would hate to think that God would essentially make someone choose between being lonely for the rest of their lives and their faith.

 

Certainly some go into the priesthood and choose to live a life of celibacy, but that's a choice.

 

Many 'reformed' homosexuals leave marriage and children because they can't be what they are not. Why one earth would you do that if sexuality was an easy thing to choose from?

 

Here's a question: Is there anywhere in the new testament outisde of Paul's letters that decries being gay?

 

I'm sure we'll agree to disagree on this one. You sound like a true Christian, and not one of the many Christians who decide to do whatever they like, but pick parts of the Bible to crap on people who they don't like. I know many, many self-described Christians who'll do whatever they like you know, drinkin' and fightin' and sex before marriage, and then say that God hates gays. In worse langauge.

 

I personally say: If you aren't hurting anyone, then I don't begrudge anyone their actions.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Xias is spot-on and I don’t see what’s so hard to get about that. Yeah, civil unions will give gay people exactly the same benefits under the law, but equal is equal in all terms. If we’re not making everything civil unions as Jobber suggests (not a half-bad idea, if a little unromantic – “honey, will you enter into a civil union with me?”), we ought to make everything marriage.

 

Rant’s concern that “only the people who look down on you now will look down on civil unions, and who cares about them?” doesn’t hold water with me simply because this is going to be a change that lasts through generations. Among people living now, sure, it probably won’t make a difference, since most of us already have a decent conception of how we perceive homosexuals and any sort of union between them. But among the next generation, and the one after that, and so on, the difference between “marriage” and “civil union” will likely be a big part in determining perspectives. Policy-wise it’s just a word; socially and culturally, it’s still just a word, but that will be a much bigger deal when it’s the only difference between homo- and heterosexual unions. Don’t underestimate the incisive and prejudicial power of terminology.

 

My case: if it’s civil unions now, it’ll be marriage further down the road, as more people take notice of the sole lingering linguistic inequality. Let’s just finish it all now and not waste our descendents’ time.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

It is a perversion to the natural order of things, and of things created by God for more pure and fulfilling purposes

 

Hey, whatever happened to that link regarding homosexuality in the animal kingdom? I know SP's totally full of shit here and I want to prove it but can't find the page.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

And it fails to pass.

 

And check out a quote from PA's favorite senator, Rick Santorum, from this article:

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?i...gop-divided.inc

 

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

 

Rick Santorum: embarrassing us Pennsylvanians yet again.

[Special K 0]

Any number of people could post pictures of their dogs humping. No that I'm actually suggesting it. Just stating a fact.

[Skywarp! 0]

For those who are against gay marriage, I must still ask a simple question that I have yet to see a real answer to: How exactly would it hurt your everyday life if gay marriage was passed?

 

Which is why I am in favour of gay marriages. The Bible is a moral code, not a legal one. I don't believe in legislating stuff based on morals. I do not agree with the gay lifestyle, but if you want to marry a member of the same sex, then that's your business and the government and everyone else should stay out of it.

In the name of putting myself in flaming danger for oversimplifying the issue, I believe the answer is merely this:

 

There IS no good reason to outlaw gay marriages. The problem is that there are people that just care way too much about what other people do as personal business and what they do in their private time. They care WAY too much about what goes on in gay people's bedrooms. Gay relationships, to them, are vile and a "threat" because the people threatened are just grossed out. They can't grasp that a decent and equal person would want a lifestyle that differs from their own.

 

Of course, it's more complicated, but when you shovel down to the very core of this problem, you'll find something like that.

[NoCalMike 0]

Ok here is something I never understood. Heterosexuals are not required to be married in front of a priest, rabbi, preacher etc....they can go and get married in front of a judge, which in theory strips the religious nature of the event away, so if this holds true, then why should homosexuals not be afforded this same right? Forget the church, they can do what they themselves view as their own religion's way, but for the government themselves, shouldn't that be an entire different issue? Assuming the government is not being dictated by religion, and more being more concerned with equal rights for everyone.

 

 

Also, as far as the gay "re-education" camps, they are basically all about making the person feel ashamed about the feelings they have, and in the end pretty much tell the person in a condiscending way, "oh well you can have those feelings, but just bury them deep down and NEVER ACT upon them" So the person is never really changing how they feel or their true attractions, they are just being trained to ignore, resist and suppress, which usually leads to severe unstability in life. They may go on tolead a normal heterosexual life with including marriage and children, however they still will never truly be happy. A good example of this was Rick Fitts's dad from American Beauty, he got married and had a kid, who he probably loved very much, but you could tell from the very beginning he was not happy inside at all, rather ashamed.

[Special K 0]

Yeah. 'Reforming' gays may sometimes be successful, I have no idea, but it can honestly ruin lives. Of them, and of their family.

 

The reason pretty much no one in government can bring up the religious argument, or even say that homosexuality is immoral is because, besides from religious arguments, there is really no basis for it. This is why they've changed the whole argument to marriage is completely, 100% about having kids, and not love which is grade-A bullshit. Don't believe me? Just look at wedding vows.

 

I can understand why some people object to homosexuality. It's part of their religion, they're grossed out, whatever. Their right. But this is about legal rights. And I believe the only 'institution' that should be held in higher regard than individual freedoms in this country is the government itself.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Any number of people could post pictures of their dogs humping. No that I'm actually suggesting it. Just stating a fact.

My point obviously is that since homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, it can't be "against god's will" since god made all the chipmunks and lowland gorillas and krill. They're not exposed to sin, they're wild animals. It doesn't get any more natural than that.

[NoCalMike 0]

Yeah. 'Reforming' gays may sometimes be successful, I have no idea, but it can honestly ruin lives. Of them, and of their family.

 

The reason pretty much no one in government can bring up the religious argument, or even say that homosexuality is immoral is because, besides from religious arguments, there is really no basis for it. This is why they've changed the whole argument to marriage is completely, 100% about having kids, and not love which is grade-A bullshit. Don't believe me? Just look at wedding vows.

 

I can understand why some people object to homosexuality. It's part of their religion, they're grossed out, whatever. Their right. But this is about legal rights. And I believe the only 'institution' that should be held in higher regard than individual freedoms in this country is the government itself.

I have hoped for a long time that our government would take the attitude and come out say something like, "we appreciate the positive aspects that many religions bring to daily life, and acknowledge that everyone can take certain aspects from holy books and apply them to their lives in order to better themselves, but we as a governing body continue to take the position not to endorse or advance any single religion over the other, and will not be influenced to make our decisions via pressure from any religious groups, our job is to insure the equal rights of all of our citizens in every way possible, and to make clear that there is a definite line to be drawn where religion ends and government begins"

 

To me that would pretty much clear up the gray area when it comes to religions role in the way government rules and makes laws.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A heterosexual doesn't think it's important?!? Get out, really?

 

-Xias

I'm not a heterosexual. While I have a position on the issue, I don't find it really important at all and have long list of issues I'd rather get taken care of first.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

this isn't YOUR fight. It's ours. You're not gay or bi-sexual. We are. We're the ones who get to decide whether or not we care about equality, not you. I hope you realize this is every bit as offensive as walking into a room full of black people in the 1970s (well, assuming you're white) and telling them what parts of racism they should be fighting against and which they shouldn't. It's not your fight. It's ours. Period.

Oh.

 

My....

 

 

GOD.

 

 

[Special K 0]

AoA. I was just saying that many of us have already actually seen it in nature. I'd certainly be interested in the website though.

 

And NoCal. I completely agree. There are many wonderful religions, and many wonderful religious people. However, as long as the government kowtows to religious interests, people will use religion as a tool of power. It doesn't matter if they believe in the basic tenets of the religion. They will use it to keep down others whom they do not approve of. They say that this nation is a Christian nation, and that may be largely true, but people forget that this country essentially was started by people hoping to escape religious persecution. Again, we live in the USA, why should anyone be denied the right to do as they please, if it doesn't hurt anyone else?

 

Of course, a whole bunch of liberal groups would be much better served if they were concerned with larger issues than piddly shit like taking under God out of the Pledge.

[Special K 0]

And...... it (the actual head topic of this conversation) just failed. hooray!

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

 

This thing is fuckin' with me.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/...iage/index.html

 

Good.

[Guest Xias]

this isn't YOUR fight. It's ours. You're not gay or bi-sexual. We are. We're the ones who get to decide whether or not we care about equality, not you. I hope you realize this is every bit as offensive as walking into a room full of black people in the 1970s (well, assuming you're white) and telling them what parts of racism they should be fighting against and which they shouldn't. It's not your fight. It's ours. Period.

Oh.

 

My....

 

 

GOD.

 

 

That was pointed towards Mr. Rant (along with the other comment you quoted me from), because it was pretty obvious he was heterosexual.

 

Yes, I do believe that there are some instances where heterosexuals need to back off and stop telling us what we should be doing. They don't know what we go through, they have no real idea, and they have no real right to preach to us about "living with it" (as if we haven't been doing that our entire lives!) and what we should and shouldn't be trying to get.

 

If you're gay or bi-sexual like I am and just disagree with me, fine. That's your perogitive. My opinion is that, to increase our standing in future generations, we need to have absolute equality now. It will be a lot easier for future generations to accept our unions if they're called the same thing as heterosexual unions, rather than something entirley different.

 

-Xias

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That was pointed towards Mr. Rant (along with the other comment you quoted me from), because it was pretty obvious he was heterosexual.

 

Yes, I do believe that there are some instances where heterosexuals need to back off and stop telling us what we should be doing.

Yes and you were doing fine until you started comparing it to the blacks' quest for civil rights.

[Guest Xias]

That was pointed towards Mr. Rant (along with the other comment you quoted me from), because it was pretty obvious he was heterosexual.

 

Yes, I do believe that there are some instances where heterosexuals need to back off and stop telling us what we should be doing.

Yes and you were doing fine until you started comparing it to the blacks' quest for civil rights.

I wasn't trying to say it was exactly the same thing. I was trying to compare it to another instance in which the majority should keep their mouths shut when it comes to the minority. Some people really don't understand that: A) We don't always want to hear their advice and B) It IS offensive to assume you know better than we do about ourselves, so I was trying to compare it to something most people do know about and understand (at least nowadays).

 

-Xias

[NoCalMike 0]

That was pointed towards Mr. Rant (along with the other comment you quoted me from), because it was pretty obvious he was heterosexual.

 

Yes, I do believe that there are some instances where heterosexuals need to back off and stop telling us what we should be doing.

Yes and you were doing fine until you started comparing it to the blacks' quest for civil rights.

I wasn't trying to say it was exactly the same thing. I was trying to compare it to another instance in which the majority should keep their mouths shut when it comes to the minority. Some people really don't understand that: A) We don't always want to hear their advice and B) It IS offensive to assume you know better than we do about ourselves, so I was trying to compare it to something most people do know about and understand (at least nowadays).

 

-Xias

For me it is simply an issue of equality and everyone being affored the same legal rights under our constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Just FYI: the vote was for cloiture, not an up-or-down vote for the amendment. In effect, there is a filibuster against the amendment even being voted on, and there wasn't even a majority that voted to end it. It's not even gonna pass the Senate, guys; this is a moot topic.

[Justice 0]

Just FYI: the vote was for cloiture, not an up-or-down vote for the amendment. In effect, there is a filibuster against the amendment even being voted on, and there wasn't even a majority that voted to end it. It's not even gonna pass the Senate, guys; this is a moot topic.

Thank, you Tyler.

 

To anyone actually thought this would, well, amount to anything other than, well, nothing, I'll quote Rasheed Wallace after Game 2 against Indiana:

 

"I told you! I told you! But you wouldn't fucking listen!"

[Special K 0]

Don't think many people thought it would pass at all, however, the discussion of gay marriage is hardly a moot topic. Anything that inspires this much debate may very well be worthy of debate.

[Justice 0]

Don't think many people thought it would pass at all, however, the discussion of gay marriage is hardly a moot topic. Anything that inspires this much debate may very well be worthy of debate.

The Congressional Amendment topic has been moot since it was suggested. That's what I was talking about.

 

On the subject of Gay Marriage, I couldn't care less. It's literally a non-issue, since neither Bush or Kerry's stance matters with it being in the Court System. At this point, it's all on the SCOTUS, and frankly, I'll leave it to them. I only wish that it didn't have to come down to what could be a very clumsy but ultimately binding decision by the Court.

[EricMM 0]

Oh my god can we puh-leeeze take the religion OUT of this discussion!?

 

If it was a religious conversation, it would not have been voted on in the senate.

 

As has been noted before, gay sex and gay marriage and even gay equality scares/disgusts/upsets some people. These people are HIDING behind their bibles, not USING them.

 

Santorum (sp) would say that marriage can't be eliminated from Hetero unions because marriage is part of America's heritage and etc. and etc. Like the act of marriage between a man and a woman is all that has ever held this country together (cuz clearly it's working so well everywhere else)

 

I am personally disgusted by people trying to dictate someone's rights because of what disgusts them. EWWWW, queers fucking, thats sick! SHUT UP! No where in the lawbooks does it say you have to be happy. I don't C-A-R-E if most of america doesn't like gay marriage. It's wrong to deny people the right to marry who they want, as long as they're of legal age and fucking human...

[NoCalMike 0]

Oh my god can we puh-leeeze take the religion OUT of this discussion!?

 

If it was a religious conversation, it would not have been voted on in the senate.

 

As has been noted before, gay sex and gay marriage and even gay equality scares/disgusts/upsets some people. These people are HIDING behind their bibles, not USING them.

 

Santorum (sp) would say that marriage can't be eliminated from Hetero unions because marriage is part of America's heritage and etc. and etc. Like the act of marriage between a man and a woman is all that has ever held this country together (cuz clearly it's working so well everywhere else)

 

I am personally disgusted by people trying to dictate someone's rights because of what disgusts them. EWWWW, queers fucking, thats sick! SHUT UP! No where in the lawbooks does it say you have to be happy. I don't C-A-R-E if most of america doesn't like gay marriage. It's wrong to deny people the right to marry who they want, as long as they're of legal age and fucking human...

well, yeah!