GOP to back ban on gay marriage

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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

"All kinds of queer shit" isn't stereotypical?

[Guest Paul H.]

How are gay rights being restricted on the fact that they are forbidden to marry?'Two consenting adults"?Please polygamists can argue the same that they are in love and the other is indifferent.

 

This is a serious issue ..marriage is the most basic expression of human nature,a man and a woman settling down and pro-creating then dying together.

 

Civil Rights is one thing but marriage is taking it too far.No one is preventing gays from voting ,bearing arms or private property.So the fact that you use the comparison to the Black struggle for Civil Rights digusts me.Blacks where burned,hung,raped and humiliated for hundreds of years,yet gays are blocked from only playing house and somehow it's the same,right?Get a grip.

 

Marriage is an institution that should be respected.I mean if you have the authority to say "Ok this the way I live my life and it's my right to do as I please becuz I'm a consenting adult" what's stop society from down-grading down to anarchy and having every minority group asking for everysingle aspect of their lives to be considered a right worth demanding?

 

If marriage is undefined and not really a natural thing between a man &woman,then I guess the mother-child bond thing is crap too,right?It's just hormones or something..or the fact that the children of Father-less house-holds are for the most part more likely to end up in jail cuz of their peers is a "skewd statistic" right? this all boils down to the structure of a family.

 

The Destruction of the traditional family unit has been more destructive on society than any ill or vice as it currently is,why add more shit on to these kids by infesting their play-grounds with Daddy& Daddy supervised play-dates?

 

Bottom Line:The traditional family..a man and a woman..a mother and a father is everything to society.

[NoCalMike 0]

How are gay rights being restricted on the fact that they are forbidden to marry?'Two consenting adults"?Please polygamists can argue the same that they are in love and the other is indifferent.

 

This is a serious issue ..marriage is the most basic expression of human nature,a man and a woman settling down and pro-creating then dying together.

 

Civil Rights is one thing but marriage is taking it too far.No one is preventing gays from voting ,bearing arms or private property.So the fact that you use the comparison to the Black struggle for Civil Rights digusts me.Blacks where burned,hung,raped and humiliated for hundreds of years,yet gays are blocked from only playing house and somehow it's the same,right?Get a grip.

 

Marriage is an institution that should be respected.I mean if you have the authority to say "Ok this the way I live my life and it's my right to do as I please becuz I'm a consenting adult" what's stop society from down-grading down to anarchy and having every minority group asking for everysingle aspect of their lives to be considered a right worth demanding?

 

If marriage is undefined and not really a natural thing between a man &woman,then I guess the mother-child bond thing is crap too,right?It's just hormones or something..or the fact that the children of Father-less house-holds are for the most part more likely to end up in jail cuz of their peers is a "skewd statistic" right? this all boils down to the structure of a family.

 

The Destruction of the traditional family unit has been more destructive on society than any ill or vice as it currently is,why add more shit on to these kids by infesting their play-grounds with Daddy& Daddy supervised play-dates?

 

Bottom Line:The traditional family..a man and a woman..a mother and a father is everything to society.

 

Need I say anymore?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

How are gay rights being restricted on the fact that they are forbidden to marry?'Two consenting adults"?Please polygamists can argue the same that they are in love and the other is indifferent.

Marriage has always been between two consenting adults. States have independantly recognized marriage soley as between a man and a woman, but marriage has always been known on a federal level as two consenting adults. You cannot marry an 8 year old, because they are not an adult. You cannot marry someone who doesn't want to get married to you. You cannot marry your pet dog or your television because those are not consenting adults.

 

This is a serious issue ..marriage is the most basic expression of human nature

Only in a religious context. Although I've debated on the side of pro-gay marriage before, myself and many others would like to see at least the civil unions that allows marriage to keep it's names while giving the privelages of a married couple.

 

Then you haven't messed with marriage. However, Republicans want to outlaw any chance of that happening, either. They are being driven by religious fundamentalists who see homosexuals as deviants and want them to be outcast by society.

 

Civil Rights is one thing but marriage is taking it too far.

 

Does that mean civil unions are okay? Becuase you've been debating against them this whole thread.

 

Marriage  is an institution that should be respected.I mean if you have the authority to say "Ok this the way I live my life and it's my right to do as I please becuz I'm a consenting adult" what's stop society from down-grading down to anarchy and having every minority group asking for everysingle aspect of their lives to be considered a right worth demanding?

What the hell?

 

If marriage is undefined and not really a natural thing between a man &woman

Marriage is not a natural thing. It is a government thing and originally a religious thing. LOVE is the natural thing.

 

Bottom Line:The traditional family..a man and a woman..a mother and a father is everything to society.

STFU.

[NoCalMike 0]

isn't marriage only 300 years old anyway?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

This is a serious issue ..marriage is the most basic expression of human nature,a man and a woman settling down and pro-creating then dying together.

I'd like to point out that both fucking and killing are far more basic expressions of human nature. Imbecilic dance party 9000.

[Guest Paul H.]

1."Marriage has always been between two consenting adults. States have independantly recognized marriage soley as between a man and a woman, but marriage has always been known on a federal level as two consenting adults. You cannot marry an 8 year old, because they are not an adult. You cannot marry someone who doesn't want to get married to you. You cannot marry your pet dog or your television because those are not consenting adults."

 

2."Only in a religious context. Although I've debated on the side of pro-gay marriage before, myself and many others would like to see at least the civil unions that allows marriage to keep it's names while giving the privelages of a married couple."

 

3."Then you haven't messed with marriage. However, Republicans want to outlaw

any chance of that happening, either. They are being driven by religious fundamentalists who see homosexuals as deviants and want them to be outcast by

society."

 

4."Does that mean civil unions are okay? Becuase you've been debating against them this whole thread."

 

5.What the hell?

 

6."Marriage is not a natural thing. It is a government thing and originally a religious thing. LOVE is the natural thing."

 

7.STFU.

 

 

1.Polygamy..is between consenting adults.But nooo they people are demanding this so this must be ok.Just like drugs.Uhmmm..coke ...people wanna snort lines so let's legalize that too.

 

But whatver tell me if gay marriages can be legal cuz it's between "consenting adults"(that term is so gay) why not Polygamy?

 

2.No,cuz it's the same thing.

 

3.No,cuz it's the same thing.

 

4.No,cuz it's the same thing.

 

5.You heard me.

 

What's stopping Polygmysts,let's say from demanding the same things?

 

Or pedo's from starting rallies to let them have pictures of little boys?Ah now they're not hurting the rest of us so it's none of my Business,right?Gay marriage sets a bad precedent.

 

6.So marriage is not normal now?You wanna know what's not normal..Man-on-Man action..

 

7.No.

 

You go to Stanford...or whatver.Marriage will be protected,our familes need to be protected.

[NoCalMike 0]

Ok someone explain the phrase, "marriage is an institution" to me. What exactly do you mean by that, and where in the the bill of rights or constitution does it say that it cannot be changed or expanded?

 

Something I really have a problem with is that it seems like a lot of the religious right whackjobs want to keep gays from the marriage right, because in their own sick & morbid minds, they want to gays remaining to be looked at like sub-human, not on the same level as heterosexuals, and somehow outlaws from a "normal" society, and the marriage initiative is an easy way to do it. Just like the Racists wanted to be looked at as superior to blacks and minorities, and integration threatended that, just like gay marriage would be another step towards true EQUALITY. And before someone lays down the "how dare you compare this to that blah blah......." I am making an indirect comparison.

[NoCalMike 0]

1."Marriage has always been between two consenting adults. States have independantly recognized marriage soley as between a man and a woman, but marriage has always been known on a federal level as two consenting adults. You cannot marry an 8 year old, because they are not an adult. You cannot marry someone who doesn't want to get married to you. You cannot marry your pet dog or your television because those are not consenting adults."

 

2."Only in a religious context. Although I've debated on the side of pro-gay marriage before, myself and many others would like to see at least the civil unions that allows marriage to keep it's names while giving the privelages of a married couple."

 

3."Then you haven't messed with marriage. However, Republicans want to outlaw

any chance of that happening, either. They are being driven by religious fundamentalists who see homosexuals as deviants and want them to be outcast by

society."

 

4."Does that mean civil unions are okay? Becuase you've been debating against them this whole thread."

 

5.What the hell?

 

6."Marriage is not a natural thing. It is a government thing and originally a religious thing. LOVE is the natural thing."

 

7.STFU.

 

 

1.Polygamy..is between consenting adults.But nooo they people are demanding this so this must be ok.Just like drugs.Uhmmm..coke ...people wanna snort lines so let's legalize that too.

 

But whatver tell me if gay marriages can be legal cuz it's between "consenting adults"(that term is so gay) why not Polygamy?

 

2.No,cuz it's the same thing.

 

3.No,cuz it's the same thing.

 

4.No,cuz it's the same thing.

 

5.You heard me.

 

What's stopping Polygmysts,let's say from demanding the same things?

 

Or pedo's from starting rallies to let them have pictures of little boys?Ah now they're not hurting the rest of us so it's none of my Business,right?Gay marriage sets a bad precedent.

 

6.So marriage is not normal now?You wanna know what's not normal..Man-on-Man action..

 

7.No.

 

You go to Stanford...or whatver.Marriage will be protected,our familes need to be protected.

Once again swine like you compare a loving consenting relationship between two adults, to pedophiles and polygamy.......please stop filling this thread with your vile.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

1.Polygamy..is between consenting adults.But nooo they people are demanding this so this must be ok.Just like drugs.Uhmmm..coke ...people wanna snort lines so let's legalize that too.

 

But whatver tell me if gay marriages can be legal cuz it's between "consenting adults"(that term is so gay) why not Polygamy?

Polygamy is NOT between two consenting adults. And this comparison to drugs is so fucking retarded that you ought to be ashamed of yourself. First of all, drugs has nothing to do with love or civil unions. Secondly, yes, some drug use might actually be safer with legalization and proper regulation. Thirdly, this is a straw man arguement. Learn to debate subjects without going to irrelevent extremes or get out of the forum, we have enough amateurs.

 

It's not the same thing because it's not marriage. It even says it's not marriage. Granted, it's about as "equal but fair" as White and Coloreds restrooms, but at least that's something.

 

pedo's from starting rallies to let them have pictures of little boys?Ah now they're not hurting the rest of us so it's none of my Business,right?Gay marriage sets a bad precedent.

6.So marriage is not normal now?You wanna know what's not normal..Man-on-Man action..

 

7.No.

 

You go to Stanford...or whatver.Marriage will be protected,our familes need to be protected.

 

Go to hell, you bigoted, intolerant, moral majority garbage. Families, in case you haven't noticed, are far and away the largest majority in America, and are very well protected. "Protecting families" doesn't mean dejecting other people because they are different than you and therefore okay to judge against.

 

The rest of us, meanwhile, will continue to exist and show no support for homophobic backwater trash like you and your agenda.

 

Keep your religion in the church, and don't bring it into fucking politics. Raise your family as you see fit, and keep the fuck out of my life because I have no interest in messing with your family.

[Highland 0]

Ah, once again CE has it's very own religious zealot. Lovely.

You're more determined than I, NoCalMike: I wouldn't have bothered replying to that drivel.

 

 

Edit: and JOTW too.

Edited September 1, 2004 by Highland

[Guest Paul H.]

1.Polygamy IS between consenting adults all parties are fully aware of what's going on.

 

2.A sexual prefrence does not warrant the deamand for the right of marriage.

 

3.Marriage is a natural process of life.

 

Homosexuality is a sexual pre-frence nothing more.Gays are people who choose have a same-sex partner ..that's all.

 

We are not comminting the equiavalent to racism by protecting marriage, We aren't denying basic civil-rights to gays by banning same-sex.Homosexuality is not a culture,race,religion,ethinicty,nationality or gender,it's a sexual PREFERENCE.

 

The fact that they demand marriage stero-types them & causes hatred even more.As if the where like aliens or something that their sexual impulse warrants them the right to marry a partner of the same sex.Why should we change the way society has been for god knows how long to accomadate a people who have not been stripped of any civil rights?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

1.Polygamy IS between consenting adults all parties are fully aware of what's going on.

 

Polygamy is NOT between two consenting adults.

 

Learn to read plz thx

[Styles 0]

I think what he's doing a horrible job of trying to get across, is that if you allows any 2 consenting adults to wed, what would stop 3 or 4 consenting adults from claiming their rights trampled on and requesting the same rights gays would recieve? Besides "all sorts of queer shit" of course...

[Guest Brian]

What's stopping them now?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Or we could just stop giving all married people benefits and just privatize marriage altogether.

[EricMM 0]

Nah, Tyler, marriage is too good to do away with.

 

It IS a good "institution" for America, and I agree it should be protected...

 

and EXPANDED!!!

 

(BTW this comment was not for Paul H. who is an ignorant fuck, not a decent human being)

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I think what he's doing a horrible job of trying to get across, is that if you allows any 2 consenting adults to wed, what would stop 3 or 4 consenting adults from claiming their rights trampled on and requesting the same rights gays would recieve? Besides "all sorts of queer shit" of course...

Their rights wouldn't be "trampled on", since they'd be free to marry 1 other person. People aren't born polygamists.

[Styles 0]

I think what he's doing a horrible job of trying to get across, is that if you allows any 2 consenting adults to wed, what would stop 3 or 4 consenting adults from claiming their rights trampled on and requesting the same rights gays would recieve? Besides "all sorts of queer shit" of course...

Their rights wouldn't be "trampled on", since they'd be free to marry 1 other person. People aren't born polygamists.

It can't be proven in a court of law that people are born gay, either. (Not that this reflects my views, but Im playing devil's advocate here). The argument that they are committed to each other and are not harming anyone else could be applied by the same legal standard.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Joining a bit late to the party, but I'd like to open my stay by saying: Paul H, shut your mouth now. Just quit it. The unfoundering bullshit "rhetoric" (which I'm not quite sure that what you've said should even qualify as that) you have used is plain moronic at best and downright condemnable at worst. Good work.

 

Now, to further the debate at hand.

 

To call homosexuality a preference and not an orientation is blasphemous. More recent research is showing that it is a genetic ordeal. This can, however, be taken in two different views:

 

1. Homosexuality should be embraced for what it is. These are people that are just like everybody else, except in terms of love and relationships. They deserve the same rights as everyone else in terms of benefits due to married couples. This is the thing we've been debating all along.

 

Now, marriage, as I think most of us all can agree on, is a pretty religious ordeal. At least, that's where it's origins are. Not to say that, necessarily, that is where it has remained today (one week weddings, anyone? How about marriage on TV? Wrestling marriages? Doesn't that ruin the sanctity of marriage?) Anyways, if religious groups are so anti-gay marriage, why not just call all of them civil unions, anyways? Receive same rights and benefits. Marriage would be left where it was originally intended, the religious aspect, while homosexuals and heterosexuals would have their couples be viewed as civil unions in the eyes of the government.

 

2. (This is sick, but I've heard it used by some people, and NO, I DON'T AGREE WITH IT) Homosexuality is a genetic defect, and should be treated and "cured" as such. Once the origins of the gene that determines sexuality can be found, it should be able to be treated so that all will be heterosexual, "as God intended."

 

I almost feel sick having typed that. In my mind, that's absolutely deplorable.

 

But as I said, I think that most can agree that marriage is/was within a religious context. It doesn't seem to be there now. But if the majority of America feels that marriage is still within it's religious roots, why not call it a damned civil union.

 

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Or, my favorite: "All men are created equal." Huh. Sure doesn't seem like it when you argue against gay marriage/civil unions.

 

--Ryan

...who says, approve 'em, and then America won't care as much...

[Skywarp! 0]

I'm surprised no one called Paul H. on saying that sexual orientation strife is uncomperable to racial strife. He said:

 

"So the fact that you use the comparison to the Black struggle for Civil Rights digusts me.Blacks where burned,hung,raped and humiliated for hundreds of years,yet gays are blocked from only playing house and somehow it's the same,right?Get a grip."

 

Ok, because no one was ever beaten to death because they were gay (Matthew Sheppard) or burned (the term "fag" originated in England as a synonym for "twig". When they would burn a gay person to death, they'd say "gather up the fags"). Gay people have been killed throughout history, we just have better records of blacks in peril with first-hand accounts of American slavery.

 

You say that gay oppression has nothing to do with civil rights. The point of civil rights is to make everyone equal, that is, eliminate discrimination, right? What are the ways you can discriminate? As a reference, most paperwork for employment contains the clause "we do not discriminate based on: race/ethnicity, religion, age, sex, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION." I'm probably even forgetting a few.

 

Your ignorance astounds me more with each post you bring.

[Guest INXS]

Gays should be allowed to be married in civil unions. It should be up to the head of each religion to decide whether gays should be allowed to marry in church or not. Politics and religion and state and religion need to be seperate. Why are the GOP intent on doing this? It's oppression. Sure, in an ideal world it would be man and woman in a nice little family unit but the world isn't like that..

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm surprised no one called Paul H. on saying that sexual orientation strife is uncomperable to racial strife. He said:

 

"So the fact that you use the comparison to the Black struggle for Civil Rights digusts me.Blacks where burned,hung,raped and humiliated for hundreds of years,yet gays are blocked from only playing house and somehow it's the same,right?Get a grip."

 

Ok, because no one was ever beaten to death because they were gay (Matthew Sheppard) or burned (the term "fag" originated in England as a synonym for "twig". When they would burn a gay person to death, they'd say "gather up the fags"). Gay people have been killed throughout history, we just have better records of blacks in peril with first-hand accounts of American slavery.

 

You say that gay oppression has nothing to do with civil rights. The point of civil rights is to make everyone equal, that is, eliminate discrimination, right? What are the ways you can discriminate? As a reference, most paperwork for employment contains the clause "we do not discriminate based on: race/ethnicity, religion, age, sex, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION." I'm probably even forgetting a few.

 

Your ignorance astounds me more with each post you bring.

The fact that you can name only one prominent example of a gay man being beaten to death shows how dissimilar the two are.

 

Your theory on the origin of the term "fag" is of a Farrakahnian level and not worthy of discourse.

 

Whom you fuck is not a valid grouping for social protections.

-=Mike

[Guest Goodear]

The fact that you can name only one prominent example of a gay man being beaten to death shows how dissimilar the two are.

 

By that same token, Blacks shouldn't feel bad because they didn't suffer as badly as the Jews (homosexuals were also rounded up as a part of the Holocaust as well as the gypsys), who shouldn't complain because they didn't get completely erased like the Aztecs. Lets not be so crazy to think that there is some sort of minimum requirement for misery for a group before they are afforded equal treatment under the law. Besides, there's no reason why groups should have to suffer outrageously before coming under the protection of government in the first place.

 

Whom you fuck is not a valid grouping for social protections.

 

Obviously it is because people fucking people of the same sex have a different set of standards because 'marriage must be protected'. You would think the insanely high rate of divorce would be the major source of worry for the protectors, but they're seemingly more interested in a small group that would benefit from the increased relationship stability that should be a byproduct of marriage.

[Guest MikeSC]

The fact that you can name only one prominent example of a gay man being beaten to death shows how dissimilar the two are.

 

By that same token, Blacks shouldn't feel bad because they didn't suffer as badly as the Jews (homosexuals were also rounded up as a part of the Holocaust as well as the gypsys), who shouldn't complain because they didn't get completely erased like the Aztecs.

Actually, blacks haven't been treated as badly as Jews in the long run (Jews have only had about 2,000 years of non-stop oppression). And, yes, homosexuals were one of the groups rounded up in the Holocaust --- one of the many. Jews were the dominant group rounded up, though.

Lets not be so crazy to think that there is some sort of minimum requirement for misery for a group before they are afforded equal treatment under the law.

They are treated equally. They're treated like polygamists. They can't marry --- but everything else is fair game.

Besides, there's no reason why groups should have to suffer outrageously before coming under the protection of government in the first place.

Except eventually every group becomes "protected", making "protection" pointless.

Whom you fuck is not a valid grouping for social protections.

 

Obviously it is because people fucking people of the same sex have a different set of standards because 'marriage must be protected'.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Apparently, the Founding Fathers weren't quite clever enough to define every little term, mistakenly assuming that people would use common sense.

You would think the insanely high rate of divorce would be the major source of worry for the protectors, but they're seemingly more interested in a small group that would benefit from the increased relationship stability that should be a byproduct of marriage.

They fought no-fault divorce, claiming that marriage would be harmed beyond repair due to it.

 

They, of course, were 100% correct. Apparently, "allowing divorce for any reason to protect women" actually ended up shafting women to the highest degree.

 

Now, they see ANOTHER attack. And they are speaking up AGAIN. And should this pass and marriage be harmed in 10-20 years due to it, you will again say "I suppose they don't care because they aren't speaking up against this."

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Apparently, the Founding Fathers weren't quite clever enough to define every little term, mistakenly assuming that people would use common sense.

And, lo & behold, people *are* using common sense by realizing that no harm will come from gay marriage.

 

Of course, those people are called "activist judges", or "forcing their will on the people", or "contributing to the destruction of the very fabric of society."

[Guest MikeSC]

Apparently, the Founding Fathers weren't quite clever enough to define every little term, mistakenly assuming that people would use common sense.

And, lo & behold, people *are* using common sense by realizing that no harm will come from gay marriage.

 

Of course, those people are called "activist judges", or "forcing their will on the people", or "contributing to the destruction of the very fabric of society."

And, mind you, all of the labels are actually shockingly accurate.

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

"contributing to the destruction of the very fabric of society."

Hardly accurate.

[Guest Loss]

And besides, aren't those who oppose gay marriage "forcing their will" by being against it when IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM? Legalizing gay marriage only affects gay people. So unless the Pat Robertsons of the world are hiding something, this shouldn't be a concern.

 

The only thing everyone seems to agree on here is that it's a non-issue.

 

I bailed out of this discussion and then realized I shouldn't have. I can't just sit back and let all of the homophobic venom spew, especially when opposing gay marriage is A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ME.

[Special K 0]

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but don't think it should be left to the judges. Let people vote, if it doesn't work, try to convince them, and try again. No constitutional amendment though.

 

I personally find it funny that now that the issue has come up, people are trying to say the only reason people have marriage is babies. I'm sure the argument's been made before but, old people, impotent people, people who don't want to have kids have been able to get married for a hell of a long time.

The only time I've seen marriage basically defined as being only for makin' da babies is in the Bible, and if you go by the Bible, every time you have sex, it DAMN sure better be to have a kid. Otherwise it's selfish hedonism. I don't think that most Americans go by that today. Otherwise we'd probably have a population problem on the level of China.

And if your objection to gay marriage is that they can't make babies, news flash, they've been able to adopt for quite a while now.

 

And Spiff?

The destruction of the very fabric of society? Jesus. It sound like it's going to be like 28 Days Later if gays start getting married. I'm gonna go build a bomb shelter. Later!