GOP to back ban on gay marriage

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yes, we know, becuase it'll lead to "all sorts of queer shit." Thank you for valued and informed opinion.

[Vyce 0]

Considering I have gay friends who know I don't support it yet who I maintain friendships with, I find it hard to believe that I hate gay people.

I'll do you one better, SP - I have gay friends who are AGAINST gay marriage.

 

I.....don't really understand where they're coming from, but I don't think I could exactly label them as anti-homosexual.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I don't have gay freinds and i'm against gay marriage.Yes.

Probably because you're a homophobic piece of crap.

[Guest Loss]

It's NOT the same as Black folk.

 

Gays aren't being hung or banned from establishments.Don't compare the two. One is race the other is a sexual perfrence and just cuz it will be normal "in the year 2000" doesn't make it right.So many people do drugs would you consider that the "norm" and ok?No you wouldn't.

 

Legalizing Gay marriages will lead to all types of queer shit.I support Bush on this one.

Yeah, like dancing.

 

You're a hate-mongering moron, and your opinion holds no weight.

 

The fact that you say sexual *preference* when it's not a preference shows how little you know about this matter.

[Guest Loss]

Wow, that's a pretty blatant attempt to silence discussion.

Yes, yes it is. And the reason for that is that there's nothing to discuss. It's the same fundamental issue as racism, only it's applied to sexual orientation. We don't "discuss" whether racism is acceptable or not. Well, we do around here, but in the real world, no, shit like that doesn't fly.

 

Or somebody who sees a possible social problem --- but hey, the First Amendment is only applicable to some people, apparently.

 

Yep. Heterosexuals. What kind of social problems could arise from this? How are heterosexuals affected? (Answer: They're not.)

 

Not even a legitimate concern about the further breakdown of marriage? Not even a legitimate concern that the courts are trampling on the entire concept of federalism?

 

If you are worried about a further breakdown in marriage, support a constitutional amendment to ban divorce. *I* don't even agree with the way the courts have handled this, but that's only because it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. However, I do respect the judges. It's no different than Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus.

 

At least you aren't blinded by hatred. 

 

That's not hatred, that's fact. Bush hates faggots. That's the ONLY reason this is an issue. That, and he's pandering to the Religious Right, a group of loving people who also hate faggots, for votes.

[Guest Loss]

Good to see you gleefully ignore that the majority of opinion polls taken on gay marriage show that the majority of Americans - at least around 60% is the consistent number - do NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

I don't give a shit what the majority thinks, because in this case, the majority is wrong. This isn't even something that should be left up to the people, because it only affects a small portion of the population. So why give a shit?

 

I guess those tens of millions of people are just ignorant, backwoods hatemongers.  Or they're all Republicans.  Or wait, is that just being redundant?

 

That was being redundant. I fail to see a difference. And yes, those tens of millions of people *are* ignorant, backwoods hatemongers. Try to convince me that they aren't.

 

Face reality - most Americans don't support gay marriage.  Are they wrong?  Yes - but that does NOT make them all bigots who hate gay people.

 

Yes it does. Quite clearly, in fact.

 

Trying to make this just an issue about Republicans is utter crap too, because it transcends party lines.

 

See the title of this post.

 

The only thing that is going to change those people's hearts & minds is time.  In time, they'll become more accepting of homosexuality and gay marriage will become a reality. 

 

Really, you need to come down - it's hard to see you way up there on that high horse of yours.

 

I'm not on a high horse. I have a government that is actively discriminating against me and it annoys me to see so many people justifying it.

 

Vyce

---Who has suspicions that you probably think the real reason McGreevey is leaving office is because he's gay.

 

Of course he is.

[Guest Loss]

Why not M/M/F unions or F/F/F unions. Where does it end?

I have no problem with that happening. So what if it does. It doesn't affect me.

[Guest Loss]

Please, Loss.

 

Give me one instance where I've demonstrated a hatred for a homosexual. One. I dare you. And don't say it's simply because I oppose gay marriage. Considering I have gay friends who know I don't support it yet who I maintain friendships with, I find it hard to believe that I hate gay people.

Actively opposing gay marriage is saying "I hate gay people and they don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us." And that's a very condescending form of friendship, don't you think? Are some of your best friends black, too?

[Guest Loss]

I don't have gay freinds and i'm against gay marriage.Yes.

You'll fit in really well in this folder.

[Guest Loss]

I'll do you one better, SP - I have gay friends who are AGAINST gay marriage.

 

I.....don't really understand where they're coming from, but I don't think I could exactly label them as anti-homosexual.

Ah, the Log Cabin Republicans. Champions of self-hatred they are.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I don't give a shit what the majority thinks, because in this case, the majority is wrong. This isn't even something that should be left up to the people, because it only affects a small portion of the population. So why give a shit?

 

That democracy thing is overrated anyways. Everybody would be happier with Saddam running the US the way he did Iraq.

 

BTW, I see nothing wrong about gay marriage, although I don't care enough either way to lose sleep over what happens. But I recognize for this (and other issues) that public opinion means alot. It is your job to convince the public change. If you are unwilling to do that (and calling your opponents hatemongers won't help), then this is not a battle that you will win. If you were the one that had the backing, then things would be different.

 

There is another option as well. Downplay the issue to the point that the opponents no longer care about it. You aren't doing that either.

[Guest Loss]

Yeah, because Lord knows every single decision made in this country is because of popular opinion. If that's the case, why even have courts? Why doesn't the public just VOTE on everything?

 

Basically, the people who it affects want it and many people who it doesn't affect are speaking out against something that will make no difference in their lives at all. The fact that the populus opposes gay marriage doesn't mean that the majority is right -- it just tells me everything I need to know about the hateful state of mind of the majority.

 

I'm not pulling straws out of my ass here. A spade is a spade.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Not even a legitimate concern about the further breakdown of marriage?

I fail to see a connection. What, hetero couples are going to say "OMG, gay couples can marry, let's all get divorced and never marry and have children ever again!"?

 

2 people who are in love and want to marry -> breakdown of marriage ???

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Loss is busting up prices. Hear hear.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow, that's a pretty blatant attempt to silence discussion.

Yes, yes it is. And the reason for that is that there's nothing to discuss. It's the same fundamental issue as racism, only it's applied to sexual orientation. We don't "discuss" whether racism is acceptable or not. Well, we do around here, but in the real world, no, shit like that doesn't fly.

Hmm, but the people who think that affirmative action is bad are called racists. Never mind that there can be LEGITIMATE disagreements with policies. It's terrible to just discount ANY view that disagrees with your own.

Or somebody who sees a possible social problem --- but hey, the First Amendment is only applicable to some people, apparently.

Yep. Heterosexuals. What kind of social problems could arise from this? How are heterosexuals affected? (Answer: They're not.)

It's a concern about the entire institution of marriage (again, I'm waiting to hear how the arguments FOR gay marriage can't be used for, say, polygamy or incestual relations) --- and a concern of the judicial branch, yet again, making law when they have no right to do so.

Not even a legitimate concern about the further breakdown of marriage? Not even a legitimate concern that the courts are trampling on the entire concept of federalism?

If you are worried about a further breakdown in marriage, support a constitutional amendment to ban divorce. *I* don't even agree with the way the courts have handled this, but that's only because it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. However, I do respect the judges. It's no different than Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus.

I know gay activists love to paint themselves with the same brush as the civil rights movement of the 60's --- but it is absolutely not the same case. It's almost insulting to try and state that it is the case.

 

States should have every right to decide what constitutes marriage if they choose to change from the universally accepted definition. If a state wants to allow gay marriage, let them. No skin off my back. If a state decides NOT to, allow them. No skin off your back.

At least you aren't blinded by hatred. 

That's not hatred, that's fact. Bush hates faggots.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

Yeah, working with "Fact" pretty well there, Loss.

That's the ONLY reason this is an issue.

Because the only view that is acceptable is YOUR view. Man, I'm more open-minded about abortion --- which I feel is MURDER.

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.

QUOTE (Paul H. @ Aug 28 2004, 06:46 AM)

I don't have gay freinds and i'm against gay marriage.Yes.

 

You'll fit in really well in this folder.

Man, you and Zsasz have that whole "flame-bait" thing down cold.

-=Mike

...Actually, I, too, know a gay person who is hardly gung-ho about gay marriage...

[Guest Loss]

Hmm, but the people who think that affirmative action is bad are called racists. Never mind that there can be LEGITIMATE disagreements with policies. It's terrible to just discount ANY view that disagrees with your own.

You know, on any other issue, you'd be 100% right, but not in this case. There is absolutely no reason why gays should not be allowed to marry, and you have yet to list a single reason.

 

And actually, people who think affirmative action is bad are probably racist, whether they're willing to admit it or not. But that's another discussion.

 

It's a concern about the entire institution of marriage (again, I'm waiting to hear how the arguments FOR gay marriage can't be used for, say, polygamy or incestual relations) --- and a concern of the judicial branch, yet again, making law when they have no right to do so.

 

If people want to marry their cousins or have polygamous relationships, more power with them. If they're not hurting anyone, I don't care. It's not my business. Why can't the same live-and-let-live attitude be applied toward gay marriage? As far as the institution of marriage, that's a catchphrase that ultimately means nothing. How will straight couples be affected by the legalization of gay marriage? Legalization is an acknowledgment that we're not subhuman.

 

I know gay activists love to paint themselves with the same brush as the civil rights movement of the 60's --- but it is absolutely not the same case. It's almost insulting to try and state that it is the case.

 

It's exactly the same. It's a group of people who are being discriminated against and are lobbying against the majority -- a majority set in its ways -- to make changes. I fail to see how it's even the slightest bit different.

 

States should have every right to decide what constitutes marriage if they choose to change from the universally accepted definition. If a state wants to allow gay marriage, let them. No skin off my back. If a state decides NOT to, allow them. No skin off your back.

 

And if a federal amendment is passed, it will no longer be a state's rights issue. I don't think it should be a states rights issue anyway, because it does nothing but further polarize the country. This land is YOUR land. It's certainly not mine.

 

BWA HA HA HA!

 

Yeah, working with "Fact" pretty well there, Loss.

 

"We're all sinners."

 

And not once, unless I can see a link to show me otherwise, has Bush actually explained WHY he has the stance he has.

 

Because the only view that is acceptable is YOUR view. Man, I'm more open-minded about abortion --- which I feel is MURDER.

 

The only view that is acceptable in this case is the one that doesn't hate, doesn't single people out and doesn't discriminate. Your view does that. Mine doesn't.

 

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

 

I'd say that 100% true.

 

Man, you and Zsasz have that whole "flame-bait" thing down cold.

              -=Mike

...Actually, I, too, know a gay person who is hardly gung-ho about gay marriage...

 

Ha, how cool. You know a gay person. What are they like? Do they jive like dem black people?

 

And personally, I consider it far more of a flame bait to spend pages discussing why a group of people shouldn't have rights than it is for someone to explain why they should. But to each their own ...

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm, but the people who think that affirmative action is bad are called racists. Never mind that there can be LEGITIMATE disagreements with policies. It's terrible to just discount ANY view that disagrees with your own.

You know, on any other issue, you'd be 100% right, but not in this case. There is absolutely no reason why gays should not be allowed to marry, and you have yet to list a single reason.

Redifining marriage for the hell of it simply opens up a Pandora's Box you don't want to deal with.

And actually, people who think affirmative action is bad are probably racist, whether they're willing to admit it or not. But that's another discussion.

Wow, discussion really is a weak point for you, isn't it?

 

One can argue that the racists are the PRO-affirmative action folks ("dem poor blacks can't possibly succeed without help"), actually.

It's a concern about the entire institution of marriage (again, I'm waiting to hear how the arguments FOR gay marriage can't be used for, say, polygamy or incestual relations) --- and a concern of the judicial branch, yet again, making law when they have no right to do so.

If people want to marry their cousins or have polygamous relationships, more power with them. If they're not hurting anyone, I don't care. It's not my business. Why can't the same live-and-let-live attitude be applied toward gay marriage? As far as the institution of marriage, that's a catchphrase that ultimately means nothing. How will straight couples be affected by the legalization of gay marriage? Legalization is an acknowledgment that we're not subhuman.

h, yeah, you're treated SO shabbily. Hell, gays are SO frowned upon.

 

Hell, gays NEVER appear on TV. How gays can survive making as little money as they do MUST be brutal. My heart, truly, bleeds.

 

And, hate to break it to you, but some people DO take the institution of marriage seriously --- much as you may wish to ignore that.

I know gay activists love to paint themselves with the same brush as the civil rights movement of the 60's --- but it is absolutely not the same case. It's almost insulting to try and state that it is the case.

It's exactly the same.

Hmm, blacks coudn't vote. Gays can't marry. Yeah, damned near the same thing. Almost IDENTICAL!

 

Sure, gays can actually HAVE the same rights through some legal papers --- but hey, it's STILL the same thing.

It's a group of people who are being discriminated against and are lobbying against the majority -- a majority set in its ways -- to make changes. I fail to see how it's even the slightest bit different.

I can't claim to be surprised that you can't see a difference.

States should have every right to decide what constitutes marriage if they choose to change from the universally accepted definition. If a state wants to allow gay marriage, let them. No skin off my back. If a state decides NOT to, allow them. No skin off your back.

And if a federal amendment is passed, it will no longer be a state's rights issue.

Nope, it actually INSURES it's a state issue. The courts, presently, make sure it won't be.

 

The Amendment will permit states to choose to define marriage above and beyond the definition --- but other states won't have to recognize them if they choose not to.

I don't think it should be a states rights issue anyway, because it does nothing but further polarize the country. This land is YOUR land. It's certainly not mine.

Your ability to survive in the face of such brutal oppression truly impresses all. I love that lawyers in robes making decisions is, somehow, LESS polarizing.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

Yeah, working with "Fact" pretty well there, Loss.

 

"We're all sinners."

 

And not once, unless I can see a link to show me otherwise, has Bush actually explained WHY he has the stance he has.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Bush said. "Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Because the only view that is acceptable is YOUR view. Man, I'm more open-minded about abortion --- which I feel is MURDER.

The only view that is acceptable in this case is the one that doesn't hate, doesn't single people out and doesn't discriminate. Your view does that. Mine doesn't.

Hardly. I do not care who somebody fucks. Fuck any adult you wish. That who you fuck is now a legitimate cause for special rights is offensive.

 

If the Amendment passes, states will have the power to decide whether to recognize gay marriages and other states won't have to worry about lawyers in robes making the choice for them.

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

I'd say that 100% true.

Sounds like the only person with a problem with hatred is you.

Man, you and Zsasz have that whole "flame-bait" thing down cold.

              -=Mike

...Actually, I, too, know a gay person who is hardly gung-ho about gay marriage...

Ha, how cool. You know a gay person. What are they like? Do they jive like dem black people?

Actually, they're interesting enough to state that whom they fuck is the least important part of their personality. If being gay is the first you say in describing yourself, you are, at the bare minimum, painfully dull.

And personally, I consider it far more of a flame bait to spend pages discussing why a group of people shouldn't have rights than it is for someone to explain why they should. But to each their own ...

No, you find people who DARE disagree with the sacred cow of the gay community --- as screwed up a group as there is --- as being "Hateful".

 

Real simple --- I could not conceivably care less whom you decide to fuck in your private life. I don't want to hear about it nor do I want to see it.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Redifining marriage for the hell of it simply opens up a Pandora's Box you don't want to deal with.

How? I'm tired of getting this "trust me, you don't want to know"-style answer. HOW?

 

Wow, discussion really is a weak point for you, isn't it?

 

It's actually quite a strong point, and issues that are deserving of discussion will get discussed. "Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married" is hate speech and it's not worthy of rationalization.

 

One can argue that the racists are the PRO-affirmative action folks ("dem poor blacks can't possibly succeed without help"), actually.

 

Ideally, two equally qualified people should be able to reach the same level of success, regardless of their skin color. These laws, however, ensure that companies (most of which are still largely run by the white men over 50 crowd that grew up in far different times) don't refuse to hire someone because of his race. Knowing that there is severe racism out there, it's mandatory that safeguards be in effect.

 

h, yeah, you're treated SO shabbily. Hell, gays are SO frowned upon.

 

Hell, gays NEVER appear on TV.

 

Rarely, actually, unless it's to perpetuate a stereotype.

 

How gays can survive making as little money as they do MUST be brutal. My heart, truly, bleeds.

 

You don't support hate crime legislation either, do you?

 

And, hate to break it to you, but some people DO take the institution of marriage seriously --- much as you may wish to ignore that.

 

Then they can take it seriously by marrying one person, not divorcing or cheating and living their lives by leading by example. They can stay out of the business of others. This is nothing more than an attempt to legislate morality.

 

Hmm, blacks coudn't vote. Gays can't marry. Yeah, damned near the same thing. Almost IDENTICAL!

 

Both are rights which aren't being allowed a group of people because of prejudices that have existed for centuries. Yes, almost identical!

 

Sure, gays can actually HAVE the same rights through some legal papers --- but hey, it's STILL the same thing.

 

Tax breaks? No. Employee benefits? No.

 

I can't claim to be surprised that you can't see a difference.

 

Nor am I surprised at your stance, quite frankly.

 

Nope, it actually INSURES it's a state issue. The courts, presently, make sure it won't be.

 

The Amendment will permit states to choose to define marriage above and beyond the definition --- but other states won't have to recognize them if they choose not to.

 

Yet if the shoe was on the other foot, the line of thinking would be totally different. If you married the love of your life and your home state chose not to acknowledge your marriage, that's fine. Say you move. Then, you have a sick family member years later and you both have to move back. Your marriage is still not acknowledged, and you no longer have the same benefits as other couples. You mean there's NOT a problem with that?

 

Your ability to survive in the face of such brutal oppression truly impresses all.  I love that lawyers in robes making decisions is, somehow, LESS polarizing.

 

I don't even agree with the judges being the ones to make the decisions, quite frankly, but I don't think it should be put to a vote either. There shouldn't be any opposition in the first place.

 

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Bush said. "Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

 

Fair enough. So he wants clarity. So do I. He's just approaching it from the total opposite end.

 

Hardly. I do not care who somebody fucks. Fuck any adult you wish. That who you fuck is now a legitimate cause for special rights is offensive.

 

You seem incapable of putting the shoe on the other foot. Married couples have rights that non-married couples do not. Somehow, I don't think you'd define a heterosexual's spouse as the person they fuck.

 

Sounds like the only person with a problem with hatred is you.

 

I want everyone to be allowed to do whatever they want because I'm a human being and believe in all people being treated like human beings. That's not hatred.

 

Actually, they're interesting enough to state that whom they fuck is the least important part of their personality. If being gay is the first you say in describing yourself, you are, at the bare minimum, painfully dull.

 

It's hardly the most important aspect of my personality. This is an issue, though, that has long-lasting effects on gays, regardless of where being gay fits into their personal order of importance.

 

No, you find people who DARE disagree with the sacred cow of the gay community --- as screwed up a group as there is --- as being "Hateful".

 

It IS hateful. You still have yet to state a real concern for the man on the street if gays are allowed to marry.

 

Real simple --- I could not conceivably care less whom you decide to fuck in your private life. I don't want to hear about it nor do I want to see it.

              -=Mike

 

Nor do I with you. I don't want to be invited to any more weddings. I don't want to know when my married friends buy a house or have a child. That would mean that I know that they're fucking, and that would be too much for me to handle.

[Guest MikeSC]

Redifining marriage for the hell of it simply opens up a Pandora's Box you don't want to deal with.

How? I'm tired of getting this "trust me, you don't want to know"-style answer. HOW?

 

While YOU don't care if the arguments are used to legalize polygamy and the like --- others are a little less thrilled with that possibility.

Wow, discussion really is a weak point for you, isn't it?

 

It's actually quite a strong point, and issues that are deserving of discussion will get discussed. "Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married" is hate speech and it's not worthy of rationalization.

At a certain point, you'll hit a level of political maturity where you can recognize that your view is not the gospel and that some can disagree without hating you.

 

You're clearly not there.

One can argue that the racists are the PRO-affirmative action folks ("dem poor blacks can't possibly succeed without help"), actually.

Ideally, two equally qualified people should be able to reach the same level of success, regardless of their skin color. These laws, however, ensure that companies (most of which are still largely run by the white men over 50 crowd that grew up in far different times) don't refuse to hire someone because of his race.

Except young white males are getting the shaft in such issues as college admissions --- and they had nothing to do with it.

 

And, the market does a bang-up job of punishing companies who are "racist". Corporations, hate to break it to you, don't see black and white. They only see green.

Knowing that there is severe racism out there, it's mandatory that safeguards be in effect.

"Severe racism"?

 

Can you possibly give even the SMALLEST piece of evidence of this "severe racism"?

h, yeah, you're treated SO shabbily. Hell, gays are SO frowned upon.

 

Hell, gays NEVER appear on TV.

Rarely, actually, unless it's to perpetuate a stereotype.

Gee, which group DOESN'T "perpetuate a stereotype" on TV in the eyes of their extremists?

How gays can survive making as little money as they do MUST be brutal. My heart, truly, bleeds.

 

You don't support hate crime legislation either, do you?

Absolutely not. Thought crime is not a crime. If you're assaulted --- it isn't due to affection.

 

But, hey, if Big Brother makes you all happy inside, support it. I, personally, prefer a little more freedom than that.

And, hate to break it to you, but some people DO take the institution of marriage seriously --- much as you may wish to ignore that.

Then they can take it seriously by marrying one person, not divorcing or cheating and living their lives by leading by example.

You can thank the current society for that.

They can stay out of the business of others. This is nothing more than an attempt to legislate morality.

But hate crime legislation --- that is peachy.

Hmm, blacks coudn't vote. Gays can't marry. Yeah, damned near the same thing. Almost IDENTICAL!

 

Both are rights which aren't being allowed a group of people because of prejudices that have existed for centuries. Yes, almost identical!

Wow, you are blinded here.

 

Fact is, if a gay person finds that special somebody, with a few legal documents, they can have all of the basic rights that straight married couples have.

Sure, gays can actually HAVE the same rights through some legal papers --- but hey, it's STILL the same thing.

Tax breaks? No. Employee benefits? No.

Employee benefits? Most of the time. Tax breaks? A lot of straight couple file separately. There is a reason.

I can't claim to be surprised that you can't see a difference.

Nor am I surprised at your stance, quite frankly.

At least I'm consistent. Fact is, gays don't receive the TINIEST sliver of hell that blacks suffered. It's not even in the same ballpark and it downplays the civil rights movement to claim otherwise.

Nope, it actually INSURES it's a state issue. The courts, presently, make sure it won't be.

 

The Amendment will permit states to choose to define marriage above and beyond the definition --- but other states won't have to recognize them if they choose not to.

Yet if the shoe was on the other foot, the line of thinking would be totally different. If you married the love of your life and your home state chose not to acknowledge your marriage, that's fine. Say you move. Then, you have a sick family member years later and you both have to move back. Your marriage is still not acknowledged, and you no longer have the same benefits as other couples. You mean there's NOT a problem with that?

Nope. A state doesn't approve of gay marriage? You don't move there. Simple little fix.

Your ability to survive in the face of such brutal oppression truly impresses all.  I love that lawyers in robes making decisions is, somehow, LESS polarizing.

I don't even agree with the judges being the ones to make the decisions, quite frankly, but I don't think it should be put to a vote either. There shouldn't be any opposition in the first place.

I know --- it's easier when everybody just agrees with you.

 

But it isn't the case. And God knows you aren't making your case.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Bush said. "Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

 

Fair enough. So he wants clarity. So do I. He's just approaching it from the total opposite end.

He's approaching it from the only end possible. The courts are going to force all states to approve it. Nobody can seriously doubt that.

 

And the courts do NOT have that power. That is, clearly, a 10th Amendment issue --- one the states should possess. But courts have not acknowledged the existence of a 10th Amendment for years.

Hardly. I do not care who somebody fucks. Fuck any adult you wish. That who you fuck is now a legitimate cause for special rights is offensive.

You seem incapable of putting the shoe on the other foot. Married couples have rights that non-married couples do not. Somehow, I don't think you'd define a heterosexual's spouse as the person they fuck.

If a straight person described themselves as a "Heterosexual person", I'd tell them I don't care whom they fuck.

 

And you seem to ignore that you're requesting rights you DO NOT have and refuse to even discuss why you deserve it.

Sounds like the only person with a problem with hatred is you.

I want everyone to be allowed to do whatever they want because I'm a human being and believe in all people being treated like human beings. That's not hatred.

Hey, is Dick Cheney anti-fag, too?

 

Guess what -- you can't do whatever you want. That's life.

Actually, they're interesting enough to state that whom they fuck is the least important part of their personality. If being gay is the first you say in describing yourself, you are, at the bare minimum, painfully dull.

It's hardly the most important aspect of my personality. This is an issue, though, that has long-lasting effects on gays, regardless of where being gay fits into their personal order of importance.

Do you think people CARE whom you sleep with? It's only an issue if YOU bring it up. That, ultimately, makes it YOUR problem. Keep your personal life PERSONAL and problems will avoid you like the plague.

 

Why even tell us you're gay? Why in the hell do you think any of us CARE whom you fuck? Why not simply keep it to yourself --- where your personal life BELONGS?

No, you find people who DARE disagree with the sacred cow of the gay community --- as screwed up a group as there is --- as being "Hateful".

 

It IS hateful. You still have yet to state a real concern for the man on the street if gays are allowed to marry.

I have and you chose to ignore it.

 

1) The courts have NO business deciding this. States should, but the courts are seeking to remove that possibility.

2) This can allow an outright assault on the entire institution of marriage which many still take very, very seriously.

Real simple --- I could not conceivably care less whom you decide to fuck in your private life. I don't want to hear about it nor do I want to see it.

              -=Mike

 

Nor do I with you. I don't want to be invited to any more weddings. I don't want to know when my married friends buy a house or have a child. That would mean that I know that they're fucking, and that would be too much for me to handle.

Then tell them that.

 

I have bitched at gay and straight friends for informing me about their sex lives. I do NOT want to hear about it, period.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

Please, Loss.

 

Give me one instance where I've demonstrated a hatred for a homosexual.  One.  I dare you.  And don't say it's simply because I oppose gay marriage.  Considering I have gay friends who know I don't support it yet who I maintain friendships with, I find it hard to believe that I hate gay people.

Actively opposing gay marriage is saying "I hate gay people and they don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us." And that's a very condescending form of friendship, don't you think? Are some of your best friends black, too?

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.

[Guest Loss]

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.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

While YOU don't care if the arguments are used to legalize polygamy and the like --- others are a little less thrilled with that possibility.

You set up marriage as the "union between 2 consenting adults". Polygamists wouldn't be discriminated against, as they'd be free to marry 1 woman or man of their choice. People aren't born polygamists.

 

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization,"

Except that allowing gay marriage will have no ill effect on civilization, so his reasoning is flawed.

[MrRant 0]

No. Jesus would make wine from water and get you drunk so you do what's right and go after some pussy.

 

 

 

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Except that allowing gay marriage will have no ill effect on civilization, so his reasoning is flawed.

 

That's why I agree with it. You at least have some common sense. You don't just spout out your word as if it were law like Loss does.

 

I'm sure MikeSC doesn't care enough about the issue to protest gay marriage if it was voted on by his representatives. That's what they are there for. The courts are supposed to interpret the law, not make new ones.

[Guest Paul H.]

So if I oppose same-sex marriages I hate gays?Because I don't want homosexual freinds that equals me to being a racist?There's no logice there.

[Guest MikeSC]

Except that allowing gay marriage will have no ill effect on civilization, so his reasoning is flawed.

 

That's why I agree with it. You at least have some common sense. You don't just spout out your word as if it were law like Loss does.

 

I'm sure MikeSC doesn't care enough about the issue to protest gay marriage if it was voted on by his representatives. That's what they are there for. The courts are supposed to interpret the law, not make new ones.

That's exactly it. If my state decided to debate gay marriage, I would not CARE which side won, since it doesn't directly impact me one way or the other. If we legalized it, I would applaud any gay couples that got married. If we shot it down, I'd feel for them --- but groups SHOULD be expected to try and make their case to the public and not just to lawyers.

 

HOWEVER, there ARE concerns that SHOULD be discussed --- and the courts have a nasty habit of just ignoring the 10th Amendment.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

What Spaceman Spiff said about Polygamists not being born polygamists is important. They still don't know what causes someone to be gay. You'll hear strong arguments from both the nature and nurture side, so just because someone really feels strongly about it doesn't make it right. If it is not something you're born with, I don't see how the pro Gay Marriage people have an argument.

 

Back in my social cause days, I'd tell a gay friend of mine that he had to fight for that right and that he was being discriminated against. His response:

 

"I don't need marriage to show that I love someone."

 

I personally think you're born with it, or at least it's something that you don't choose, in regards to being attracted to someone of the same sex. The definition of marriage, as it has been since forever, is impossible with two gay people. Gay people still deserve the same rights as a traditional married couple, and that's where civil unions come in, so that they can have all the "breaks" or whatever, along with the legal status. Of course, then it's a money issue, but like what was said marriage is not needed to show love for someone.

 

I too think abortion is outright murder. I'm with Mike on not one but TWO issues. Scary thought.

[Guest MikeSC]

Commmmmmmmmmmmmmmmme to the dark side.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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.

 

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, but I do think it's pretty obvious we're going for the Jesus Vote here with these constant initiatives. Bush is well aware that if he can get a big majority of evangelicals, the rest doesn't matter. This strategy was even planned out in an episode of Frontline. "It's like they realized, 'My God, you can get to the White House with just the evangelical 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.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because I don't want homosexual freinds that equals me to being a racist?

No, it equals to you being bigoted and discriminatory.