GOP to back ban on gay marriage

[Guest MikeSC]

States should have every right to decide what constitutes marriage if they choose to change from the universally accepted definition.

You don't seem to understand that the "universal definition" has changed over the years, and that courts have been fundamental in shaping that change. Either that or you refuse to accept it.

The "universal definition" is "man and woman". This is a pretty radical departure from that.

That, and he's pandering to the Religious Right, a group of loving people who also hate faggots, for votes.

Sure. Of course. Heck, go ahead and say that "anybody who votes for Bush hates fags." You know you want to.

I don't think he's going that far

Actually, he did. Just to clarify.

but I do think it's pretty obvious we're going for the Jesus Vote here with these constant initiatives.

Somewhat, yes. There are also a large contingent of Constitutionalists who feel that the checks and balances have been knocked out of whack over the years by courts overreaching their authority.

Bush is well aware that if he can get a big majority of evangelicals, the rest doesn't matter.

Honestly, he'd get them regardless. It'd be like saying Kerry supports abortion to get the pro-choice vote.

One thing I wish we could do more in this thread is seperate gay marriage and civil unions when debating. While gay marriage isn't very accepted in America, civil unions are, and this bill threatens that. For that reason, I see it as a nod to the religious vote. Again, another reason why I wish the GOP would finally shake this monkey off their back.

First off, the GOP no more needs to shed religious conservatives than the Dems need to shed blacks. They're a core constituency with definite concerns.

 

As for gay marriage/civil unions --- but the whole thingup for a vote. The Amendment simply states that courts can't make it the law of the land.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

As a matter of fact, yes.  Unless you have sigs turned off, playing the race card with me is pretty ludicrous.

 

But you're cute when you're being stupid.  Seriously.

I do have sigs turned off actually. I wish I could call you cute for befriending people as a favor to them when you think they're sinners, but hey, maybe my definition of friendship is different than yours.

 

Continue to call me stupid. I'm sure that's what Jesus would do.

Jesus would probably point it out alot nicer than I would, but he'd still address the base problem with your approach.

 

Cutie.

 

Now. In my sig is a quote from a group comprised entirely of mid-20's black males, along with a picture of the album cover from their most recent effort. If I hated black people, I'd in no way support them.

 

I find it funny that you, Loss, are being the biggest biggot in the entire thread. You sound like the other extreme of Paul H. here. Way to present a good picture of YOUR cause. Being a bigot. I guess that's what all gay people would do in your shoes.

 

Oh, no . . . wait. No, no they wouldn't, actually. Since they're people with a sexual orientation, they're still people and thus capable of being sensible and having an intelligent conversation without stooping to stupidity, bigotry, and mud slinging. Which you're doing the most of in this discussion.

 

Your assertion that I befriend people out of some kind of mightier then thou kindness is both ludicrous, and it displays your ignorance rather boldly. Guess what, Loss. I sin too. Every day. All of us do. THAT's why we needed Jesus in the first place. The rest of this life is cleaning up well with His help and power, but the battle with sin is a part of being human.

 

You're being nauseatingly harsh, Loss. Debate with some levelheadedness. I know, I know, it's a lost art in CE. But try.

 

EDIT: I edited out an example that was a little harsh, myself. Needless to say, it's like debating with a brick wall.

Edited August 29, 2004 by SP-1

[Jobber of the Week 0]

First off, the GOP no more needs to shed religious conservatives than the Dems need to shed blacks. They're a core constituency with definite concerns.

I disagree strongly. When your concerns are based on the Bible, they're no longer "definite" or even "logical." The religious right is an anchor that makes the Republicans look like a bunch of extremists. They shouldn't even be taken seriously except for the large number of people who don't agree with their views but enjoy getting their votes. This relationship is a product of both a two-party system and the constant concessions and reachouts for the religious votes. They've thrown fits before about leaving to form their own party, and I hope they eventually will. Not because it gives us some edge, but because it would make them completely irrelevant in national politics, and I would feel a lot better about the state of America once THAT happens.

 

They are a black eye on the GOP as much as the anti-war crowd is a black eye on the Dems. Arguably, though, the anti-war crowd is usually either Green or Independent and doesn't like to vote for Dems because of Republicrats or whatever the catchword for "both parties are equally corrupt to me" is this week.

 

As for gay marriage/civil unions --- but the whole thingup for a vote. The Amendment simply states that courts can't make it the law of the land.

You don't understand that Judges are around to make decisions that the people may not agree with if put up to a vote. You realize that was why they were founded, to keep the ideals of the country on track.

 

Judges aren't supposed to be beholden to the sheep of the country. That's why you don't choose your judges on your ballots (or at least, not all your judges.) They shouldn't be having to satisfy whoever voted for them, but remain independent.

 

 

 

And when a Judge declared the California marriages illegal, you didn't see me shouting about judicial activism. That's because I know these things already.

[Guest SP-1]

I love the Bible bashing. It's fun to read.

 

Uninformed.

 

But fun to read.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

You know, I don't think that the actual term "marriage" will ever be able to be taken out of it's religious context. It's probably why so many people disagree with it. I'm interested to see what the majority of America would say if civil unions were offered up instead. When you label it "gay marriage," this is when people start to question it's validity in terms of religion.

 

Of course, religion isn't supposed to make policy, but that's another story for another day.

 

SP: People Bible bash mainly because, well, when they read what has been printed, it can provide a far different story than one put into different context's, depending on one's specific point of view. You'll always have one view of the Bible. I'm going to have a different one. I think that it provides great ideas. It is influential. For some, it can be a compass for life.

 

HOWEVER: it is NOT, nor should it ever, be used to dictate policy. At least in terms of the United States. First Amendment, kids. But not only that. There are things outdated. (Slavery is OK, etc.) I think that it is wrong in terms of homosexuality. Remember: that's my opinion of it. I won't pretend to be an expert on Scripture.

 

As I've said: let's see what the term civil unions would do. Homosexuals deserve the same privileges enjoyed by straight couples in terms of legal benefits. Define marriage as between two people.

 

--Ryan

...coherent thought at 12:30 AM. Not bad...

[Guest MikeSC]

First off, the GOP no more needs to shed religious conservatives than the Dems need to shed blacks. They're a core constituency with definite concerns.

I disagree strongly. When your concerns are based on the Bible, they're no longer "definite" or even "logical."

 

 

Do you realize how many groups don't have "logical" concerns?

The religious right is an anchor that makes the Republicans look like a bunch of extremists.

If it wasn't them, somebody else would be viewed as the bogeyman.

They shouldn't even be taken seriously except for the large number of people who don't agree with their views but enjoy getting their votes.

Why shouldn't they be taken seriously? I take their views more seriously than, say, NARAL.

This relationship is a product of both a two-party system and the constant concessions and reachouts for the religious votes. They've thrown fits before about leaving to form their own party, and I hope they eventually will. Not because it gives us some edge, but because it would make them completely irrelevant in national politics, and I would feel a lot better about the state of America once THAT happens.

Religion is not a bad thing. No religious conservative wants a theocracy. However, they DO make cogent and coherent points that are deserving of respect.

As for gay marriage/civil unions --- but the whole thingup for a vote. The Amendment simply states that courts can't make it the law of the land.

You don't understand that Judges are around to make decisions that the people may not agree with if put up to a vote.

And there are issues that are NOT intended to be ruled on by the judiciary. There is a 10th Amendment, you know. Marriage IS controlled by the states. It should be left as such.

You realize that was why they were founded, to keep the ideals of the country on track.

And they've overstepped their bounds rather badly. Hell, Roe v Wade was one of the worst decided cases in judicial history and just asinine if one tries to comprehend the logic behind it.

Judges aren't supposed to be beholden to the sheep of the country.

Simple question --- do you trust the views of no more than 5 lawyers to decide what's best for your life?

 

Lawyers are viewed as slime by most Americans.

 

Where do you think judges come from?

That's why you don't choose your judges on your ballots (or at least, not all your judges.) They shouldn't be having to satisfy whoever voted for them, but remain independent.

No, they now have limitless power and no accountability for unspeakably bad decisions.

And when a Judge declared the California marriages illegal, you didn't see me shouting about judicial activism. That's because I know these things already.

The judge simply ruled that city officials cannot ignore laws they do not like.

 

HOWEVER, the law should be decided by the legislature --- not an increasingly idiotic judiciary.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If it wasn't them, somebody else would be viewed as the bogeyman.

Well, the shards of racism are pretty much all over the spectrum at this point (hello, Mr. Byrd) so I don't really think so. I don't even know if they're so much a bogeyman, they're a special interest. I just wish they were a special interest with as little influence as possible.

 

Religion is not a bad thing. No religious conservative wants a theocracy. However, they DO make cogent and coherent points that are deserving of respect.

 

Sorry, once you bring Jesus into legislative and political issues, you've lost your credibility with me. There's simply no place to make law based on the Bible or the teachings of God. Good law or bad law, you need better reasons than that.

 

And there are issues that are NOT intended to be ruled on by the judiciary. There is a 10th Amendment, you know. Marriage IS controlled by the states. It should be left as such.

 

Fine. How's this an idea to allow states whether they want civil unions or not: If you want to have heterosexual marriages, you have to support civil unions, too. If you don't want to support civil unions, than you have to drop support for hetero marriage, too. This keeps things equal and non-discriminatory while still leaving an option for whoever is just that damn desperate to make sure there ain't no civil unions goin' on round here.

 

And if there is a state foolish enough to do that, and hetero couples want to keep getting married (as I'm sure they do), they can do what you said and move into another state.

 

Simple question --- do you trust the views of no more than 5 lawyers to decide what's best for your life?

I trust the courts to make decisions that will further America's ideals better than a nation of people who decided that "The Apprentice" was good television.

[MrRant 0]

Such a holier than thou attitude from JOTW... who have I seen that from?

 

-=MrRant

 

Edit : Changed though to thou.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

EDIT: Whoops.

[Guest SP-1]

Such a holier than though attitude from JOTW... who have I seen that from?

 

-=MrRant

Is that what you were talking about Rant?

[MrRant 0]

No. Couple pages back.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Such a holier than though attitude from JOTW...

Oh boy, using that phrase in terms of me is pretty humorous.

[Guest Loss]

I'm bowing out. This discussion is a little too close to my heart, and I still feel like a few of you are rationalizing discrimination, but I'm not capable of debating it with an open mind. So I'm outta here.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I'm bowing out. This discussion is a little too close to my heart, and I still feel like a few of you are rationalizing discrimination, but I'm not capable of debating it with an open mind. So I'm outta here.

I'm not rationalizing discrimination, I put out some pretty good points I felt.. I never insulted anyone and I'm not even an American, let alone a Republican. I understand why it would be a close issue to you, but that should all the more make you feel more interested in discussing it.

[NoCalMike 0]

If marriage can exist outside of religion, then it must be legal for homosexuals. Civil Unions are a given either way though since they have absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Plus I know that a lot of companies are now including "domestic partner" benefits in their policy, to show they are open to "different" lifestyles.

 

I'd say if corporations were allowed to be REDEFINED as a person, then we can "redefine" marriage being two adults.

[Vyce 0]

I'm bowing out. This discussion is a little too close to my heart, and I still feel like a few of you are rationalizing discrimination, but I'm not capable of debating it with an open mind. So I'm outta here.

We'll welcome you back to the discussion once you learn to think rationally.

[NoCalMike 0]

Ok I have a question. If someone just started up a religion(perfectly legal) and decided to make gay marriage legal, then would that fall under freedom of religion and then marriage would have to be recognized?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You mean like, "In my religion gay people can marry! STOP TRAMPLING ON MY RELIGION!!" or something like that?

[Guest MikeSC]

Ok I have a question. If someone just started up a religion(perfectly legal) and decided to make gay marriage legal, then would that fall under freedom of religion and then marriage would have to be recognized?

Nope. There are churches in Utah that allow polygamy. Those aren't recognized. This wouldn't be, either.

-=Mike

[Guest Paul H.]

Marriage is between a man & woman.If we start re-difening marriage we might as well start legalizing bestiality or allow people to marry their hands hey fuck,all festishes are cool right?

 

Homosexuality is just a fetish,a preference,it's not a culture,lifestyle or race or religion.They didn't come on boats opr have a "messiah" tell them they are the chosen people.Gay people are ..in actuality..living proof that civil rights are for the most part being respected.

 

Gay Rights?they have rights no one is stopping them in the streets and giving them wedgies or putting them in tents in detention centers.

[spiny norman 0]

Marriage is between a man & woman.If we start re-difening marriage we might as well start legalizing bestiality or allow people to marry their hands hey fuck,all festishes are cool right?

 

Homosexuality is just a fetish,a preference,it's not a culture,lifestyle or race or religion.They didn't come on boats opr have a "messiah" tell them they are the chosen people.Gay people are ..in actuality..living proof that civil rights are for the most part being respected.

 

Gay Rights?they have rights no one is stopping them in the streets and giving them wedgies or putting them in tents in detention centers.

You are, without a doubt in my mind, the worst and most ignorant poster these forums have ever had.

 

I was just going to lurk and not bother posting (I think gay marriage should be a legal option, but nobody's going to persuade anybody to think differently), but over the past four pages this dickhead has been increasingly agitating to me.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If we start re-difening marriage we might as well start legalizing bestiality

Oh my god, I'm arguing with Rick Stantorum.

 

Okay, get it like this: Marriage has to be between two consenting adults. Even if we leave gender out of it, TWO. CONSENTING. ADULTS. An animal is not an adult, nor can it consent to marriage.

 

or allow people to marry their hands

NOT. A CONSENTING. ADULT.

 

Homosexuality is just a fetish,a preference,it's not a culture,lifestyle or race or religion.

Actually, I'd say religion and lifestyles (to an extent) change easier than sexuality.

 

Why in the living hell would someone WANT to live in a fashion where people like you hate them? "I think I'll be gay today, because I enjoy it when Paul H puts me down."

[MrRant 0]

We need Rob Stone back.

[spiny norman 0]

Why in the living hell would someone WANT to live in a fashion where people like you hate them? "I think I'll be gay today, because I enjoy it when Paul H puts me down."

Comic value?

[Skywarp! 0]

Marriage is between a man & woman.If we start re-difening marriage we might as well start legalizing bestiality or allow people to marry their hands hey fuck,all festishes are cool right?

 

Homosexuality is just a fetish,a preference,it's not a culture,lifestyle or race or religion.They didn't come on boats opr have a "messiah" tell them they are the chosen people.Gay people are ..in actuality..living proof that civil rights are for the most part being respected.

 

Gay Rights?they have rights no one is stopping them in the streets and giving them wedgies or putting them in tents in detention centers.

It's a lifestyle, retard. Please just unsubscribe and never post again.

[Guest Paul H.]

To say it's a lifestyle is to stero-type them.

[Guest Loss]

To say it's a lifestyle is to stero-type them.

As what, people?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I was thinking more along the lines of souless heathens, but whatever floats your boat...

[Styles 0]

I was thinking more along the lines of souless heathens, but whatever floats your boat...

Can we say though KKK, with some degree of certainty that the Jews are probably behind homosexuality?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I don't see you posting any hippie "Israel Myths" about this, so it must be true...