The shameful gay marriage ban.

[SoulOnIce]

I think this has been discussed before but with 11 states banning gay marriage I need to understand what are people's issue with this.

If there are people here against gay marriage please explain to me.

Why shouldn't two men or women in a loving relationship have the right to get married?

If you think marriage is a sacred institution and gay marriage violates that institution what about husbands and wives cheating on each other? What about people who have been divorced three or four times?

My brother-in-law has lived with his partner for 5 years and has a better relationship than most straight couples. He lives in Toronto so he has the right to get married but why would you deny him that right? If, as Bush says, marriage is the backbone of a stable society, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

What gives you the right to ban marriage between two loving adults? Who are they hurting?

I honestly can't wrap my head around the mind set of someone who would ban gay marriage.

It may sound corny but there is so much hate in the world why would you want to deny someone a way of expressing their love?

I truly believe in 50 or so years gay marriage will be almost completely legal. You can't stop the march of progress. Today, we look back and we can't believe that interracial marriage was once banned and I think in the future we will look back and not believe that gay marriage was once banned.

To any gay people out there I would invite you to Toronto to get married. We even have gay wedding planners and gay-themed wedding packages. It is one of the things that makes me so proud to be Canadian.

[the4thpip]

I have been in a long distance relationship with my fiance for 4 years. 4 years today, actually. Happy fricken anniversary.

Because I cannot marry him, we wake up without each other about 300 mornings of the year. And all because of some politically motivated book of mythology written thousands of years ago, and the willingness of Republicans to exploit people's faith, fears and bigotry to gain power. I am so mad right now I can't begin to tell you.

[sixstringguild]

...some politically motivated book of mythology written thousands of years ago,

And let's not forget, still one of the top sellers every year...

[mortari]

And let's not forget, still one of the top sellers every year...

Now if only we could get people to read the darn thing!

[sixstringguild]

Now if only we could get people to read the darn thing!

That is too true.

[heystacy]

I don't know. Marriage has never been an issue with me. I can't see myself opposing anybody's relationship or marriage. If you want to be with someone, I can't oppose that. It should go without saying that consenting adults do not need to be policed.

Truth to be told, this topic has come up several times at work, and with friends. I heard plenty of the pros and cons. I can tell you that a some of people I've talked to feel that gay marrige makes a mockery of what they believe in. The same responses always come up. "Gay marriage a sin before God." Keep in mind that a lot of people put on equity on sin, as they see it. They also ignore their own transgressions, if we follow the logic.

As long as we live in an oppresive society where ignorance and prejudice are allowed to dominate, we will never be free in our lives.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Last night on CBS an expert came on with poll date and showed some Interesting sights.This Election was more or less down to the Religious Church going group.


Seems that as he said: "The Church Voters who turned out more...wanted things to stay as they are.Like a Norman Rockwell painting where everything seems right.They really took the Election."



I'll have to agree with him.The older voters seem to want that picture perfect Country.The type of country where mom,apple pie, and America seems perfect.There was no way they wanna be concerned with Terrorism,gay marriage unions, or John Kerry.


Thats why Bush won.He can handle Terrorism so we won't have to think about It.Had more younger voters turned In...(only 17% of todays youth voted) they may have had an Impact.


It sucks I know.What can you say?The older voters pretty much took the Election and made It more or less about a faith deal.

[Yoda]

Look at it this way, with the success of these gay marriage bans in the handful of states the need for a Constitutional Amendment will seem a lot less urgent to the opponents. A constitutional amendment would have been the death of any hope for gay marriage rights. In that respect this is good news for the proponents of gay marriage, they can work on the states that will allow it, push for civil unions in states that aren't as accepting and over time it will be less of a hot button issue.

[Roquefort Raider]

Sometimes I'm so proud of my country. ;)

[the4thpip]

Seems that as he said: "The Church Voters who turned out more...wanted things to stay as they are.Like a Norman Rockwell painting where everything seems right.They really took the Election."



I'll have to agree with him.The older voters seem to want that picture perfect Country.The type of country where mom,apple pie, and America seems perfect.There was no way they wanna be concerned with Terrorism,gay marriage unions, or John Kerry.


Yup. The ONLY car with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker I saw in Miami Beach yesterday also had one that said "Live Daddy"s Drean!"

I wanted to yell at him, "the past is dead! Dead and gone! You ain"t gone sleep in grandma's arms no more!"

[sixstringguild]

Yup. The ONLY car with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker I saw in Miami Beach yesterday also had one that said "Live Daddy"s Drean!"

I wanted to yell at him, "the past is dead! Dead and gone! You ain"t gone sleep in grandma's arms no more!"

yeah, that will win him over.

[Dreadstar]

Sometimes I'm so proud of my country. ;)

I thought you were Canadian?



By DAMN, I AM proud of my country. People stood up, for hours in freezing rain and were COUNTED.

As much as I might personally find the Defense of Marriage amendments to be wrong-headed, they WERE voted for, via the democratic process. Not all of the people who voted "YES" are hateful barbaric bible-thumping rednecks, it's not possible. With that many votes, you have to concede that a great many were well-educated people, able to think for themselves.

Do I agree with their choice?

Hell no.

Am I going to accede to their wishes?

Damn straight.

Now we can only hope that the Supreme Court of each state rules the amendment unconstitutional. There's where my hopes are pinned.

[DarkCrisis]

I asked a couple people here at work why the voted for the ban

Basicly for Moral reasons

I think it's bunk but it looks like i'm in the minority

[Crowley]

i think it's because some people like to use their bible as a means to repress others... They pick and choose the parts that suit their intolerance.

pretty soon someone is going to pop into this thread and say the bible say homosexuality is wrong... but then when asked if we should kill people for working on the Sabbath... they'll say "no, no... that part doesn't count!"

when asked whether it's wrong for a woman to wear clothes made of two seperate fabrics?

"no, no... that part doesn't count!"

when asked about the practice of keeping slaves?

"no, no... that part doesn't count!"

etc,etc,etc... it's selective bible reading. It's choosing to utilize a system of belief as a means of oppression instead of trying to understand the ideas behind the bible which are about compassion and understanding.

[Deathstroke]

And let's not forget, still one of the top sellers every year...

and yet never appears where it belongs, on the top of the fiction bestseller list.

[Roquefort Raider]

I thought you were Canadian?



Yes, and the reason I'm proud in this instance is that Canada doesn't have the same problem with gay marriage as its southern neighbour does.

Democracies differ, and not all of them make the right choices (as far as I'm concerned, of course).


- Ben

[PatrickG]

What I want to know is why we, as a society, think law has anything to do with morality.

Has anyone besides me actually known any lawyers?

Law is about social order and argumentative tactics. It's a system. It's a set of hoops to jump through.

Morality should have no influence on law. Morality is a personal realization. Law is the framework in which we live.

[Siegzon]

I honestly can't wrap my head around the mind set of someone who would ban gay marriage.


intrinsic value (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9908/articles/george.html)

I am just dropping off this link to offer you a perspective on this issue, since it sounds from your post you have some genuine curiosity on other viewpoints.

peace

[PatrickG]

Oh. And speaking of dead? And elderly voters dominating?

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=F49AB62B-D841-423E-B776-AAF728708A7D

It appears that there's now a legitimate way for people to impose their will for the country from beyond the grave.

[founder81]

What I want to know is why we, as a society, think law has anything to do with morality.

Has anyone besides me actually known any lawyers?

Law is about social order and argumentative tactics. It's a system. It's a set of hoops to jump through.

Morality should have no influence on law. Morality is a personal realization. Law is the framework in which we live.

Well, you see...it because...uh, you have to understand...yah it like this...

...

...

GET HIM! He's a hethen gay terrorist ploting to destroy mom apple pie the the american dream.

[Cam63]

and yet never appears where it belongs, on the top of the fiction bestseller list.

Good one :)

[Cam63]

I think this has been discussed before but with 11 states banning gay marriage I need to understand what are people's issue with this.

If there are people here against gay marriage please explain to me.

Why shouldn't two men or women in a loving relationship have the right to get married?

If you think marriage is a sacred institution and gay marriage violates that institution what about husbands and wives cheating on each other? What about people who have been divorced three or four times?

My brother-in-law has lived with his partner for 5 years and has a better relationship than most straight couples. He lives in Toronto so he has the right to get married but why would you deny him that right? If, as Bush says, marriage is the backbone of a stable society, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

What gives you the right to ban marriage between two loving adults? Who are they hurting?

I honestly can't wrap my head around the mind set of someone who would ban gay marriage.

It may sound corny but there is so much hate in the world why would you want to deny someone a way of expressing their love?

Irrational fear and hatred would be my guess.

[PatrickG]

My big problem with the article supplied is that it assumes that people against abortion laws or against marriage bans do not believe in God or believe that homosexuality and abortion are moral. That's just not true.

I know people with a range of views, including some who believe that homosexuality is a sin and still don't believe that public policy should regulate it or discriminate against it.

Morality does not and should not equal law.

I'm just shocked.

[Cyke]

The dear Lord knows how many religious gay youth groups I've met. Talk about enlightened! Proof positive that you can be gay and still worship the awesome God.

I get so angry at guys like Alan Keyes who calls anyone heathens, seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a handful of gays who went to church more often than Keyes himself.

[the4thpip]

I'm pretty sure that this will lead to a substantial amount of state-to-state migration.
If the law in Ohio is not quickly struck down by the courts, some couples may have no other choice. I wonder if voters there realised just how far-reaching the provision they approved was. It's the most radical of all the "gay marriage bans" on the ballots yesterday.
It not only bans gay marriage and any kind of civil union recognition, it could also be used to render null and void any kind of contract or legal document between gay partners. If one of them dies, his or her family can challenge the will and kick the widower or widow out of their house and take everything that was left to them.
Many couples fought long and hard to get legal guardianship over their over their spouse's children: no more. Power of attorney: Gone. Visitation rights: Forget about it.

It"s a cruel and inhumane law, and if I lived in Ohio, I'd start applying for jobs in Massachusetts, California or Vermont right about now.

[Pixies Chick]

I'm pretty sure that this will lead to a substantial amount of state-to-state migration. ...
It"s a cruel and inhumane law, and if I lived in Ohio, I'd start applying for jobs in Massachusetts, California or Vermont right about now.

That's one of the crazy things about this. I lived in San Francisco for a while, and one of my roommates was a lesbian from Oklahoma.

OK is NOT in similar to SF. Talk about fish out of water. Weird thing about it was that the people who say they oppose "the gay lifestyle" (whatever that is) were exiling her to a culture that she wasn't ready for, and really didn't seem to want. I lost track of her, but I hope she found her way to a place she was more comfortable. Where she seemed to want to be was back home.

[Mia]

Yes, and the reason I'm proud in this instance is that Canada doesn't have the same problem with gay marriage as its southern neighbour does.

Democracies differ, and not all of them make the right choices (as far as I'm concerned, of course).


- Ben

It doesn't? Is that so?

At least the American voters got to have a say whether or not they want to allow homosexual marriage. Canadians had no such choice at all. It was forced on the public by a group of un-elected judges.

I have problems with the American system. But at leasts it's a heck of a lot more fair and democratic than it is up here in Canada. Americans can vote for their President, Senator and Congress-person.

Canadians have no such choice. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister (usually a party member). And when you vote, you vote for a member of a political party to represent you in parliament. The prime minister is the person who is the head of the political party that wins. So basically the party with the most votes wins and the head of the party becomes prime minister. So if I like my MP but hate the party leader (or vice versa) too bad you're stuck you vote for one you get both.

[Ian Boothby]

It doesn't? Is that so?

At least the American voters got to have a say whether or not they want to allow homosexual marriage. Canadians had no such choice at all. It was forced on the public by a group of un-elected judges.

I have problems with the American system. But at leasts it's a heck of a lot more fair and democratic than it is up here in Canada. Americans can vote for their President, Senator and Congress-person.

Canadians have no such choice. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister (usually a party member). And when you vote, you vote for a member of a political party to represent you in parliament. The prime minister is the person who is the head of the political party that wins. So basically the party with the most votes wins and the head of the party becomes prime minister. So if I like my MP but hate the party leader (or vice versa) too bad you're stuck you vote for one you get both.


It was a human rights case so why shouldn't judges decide it? Should human rights be voted on? If so how can they be rights?

[Matches Malone]

It was a human rights case so why shouldn't judges decide it? Should human rights be voted on? If so how can they be rights?

Judges didn't write the U.S. Constitution, which confers most recognized "rights" on Americans. With the exception of occasional judicial activism in the last 50+ years, we have never relied on judges to decide what "rights" exist.

[the4thpip]

Judges didn't write the U.S. Constitution, which confers most recognized "rights" on Americans. With the exception of occasional judicial activism in the last 50+ years, we have never relied on judges to decide what "rights" exist.
How about the right to interracial marriage?

[Crinos]

Now it is my philosophy that all love is cool as long as its mutually consensual, If two gay people want to marry, let them. Its not hurting anyone, nobodys dying because of it.

Stealing is illegal because it hurts people, murder is illegal because it hurts people, drugs are illegal because it hurts people.

Gay marriages dont hurt anyone, so lay off them already!

[Matches Malone]

How about the right to interracial marriage?

There is no "right to interracial marriage". Even when African-Americans were slaves, I don't think there would have been a legal prohibition against such a thing. And African-Americans were freed from slavery by way of a series of constitutional amendment, for which there is a procedure. That procedure does not involve judges; it involves the duly-elected legislature and president.

[Ian Boothby]

Judges didn't write the U.S. Constitution, which confers most recognized "rights" on Americans. With the exception of occasional judicial activism in the last 50+ years, we have never relied on judges to decide what "rights" exist.

We were talking about a Canadian situation. But I have a question because I don't study U.S. law. When you have something like the Patriot Act where rights are taken away from citizens who makes that call?

[SoulOnIce]

Now it is my philosophy that all love is cool as long as its mutually consensual, If two gay people want to marry, let them. Its not hurting anyone, nobodys dying because of it.

Stealing is illegal because it hurts people, murder is illegal because it hurts people, drugs are illegal because it hurts people.

Gay marriages dont hurt anyone, so lay off them already!

The smartest thing I have heard all day.

[Mia]

It was a human rights case so why shouldn't judges decide it? Should human rights be voted on? If so how can they be rights?

I don't understand what you are saying. But as far as I can remeber from my history lessons. The charter of rights and freedoms was drafted by elected officials. Not by judges.

[Matches Malone]

We were talking about a Canadian situation. But I have a question because I don't study U.S. law. When you have something like the Patriot Act where rights are taken away from citizens who makes that call?

Generally speaking, any law is subject to judicial review to see if it complies with the Constitution. Many of our landmark court cases (including Roe v. Wade and Brown vs. Board of Education) are examples of that process.

A judge's decision can be "changed" (not retroactively, only prospectively) by a Constitutional amendment, which is much more complicated than passing a regular bill.

[Ian Boothby]

Generally speaking, any law is subject to judicial review to see if it complies with the Constitution. Many of our landmark court cases (including Roe v. Wade and Brown vs. Board of Education) are examples of that process.

A judge's decision can be "changed" (not retroactively, only prospectively) by a Constitutional amendment, which is much more complicated than passing a regular bill.

Okay, good to know. Thanks.

[the4thpip]

There is no "right to interracial marriage". Even when African-Americans were slaves, I don't think there would have been a legal prohibition against such a thing. And African-Americans were freed from slavery by way of a series of constitutional amendment, for which there is a procedure. That procedure does not involve judges; it involves the duly-elected legislature and president.
You're wrong, the Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting interracial marriage in the 1960s. I"m going out now, will provide a link later.

[Lex]

The dear Lord knows how many religious gay youth groups I've met. Talk about enlightened! Proof positive that you can be gay and still worship the awesome God.

Exactly! When I went to college I wasn't sure how I felt about homosexuality, but I had heard my whole life that it was a sin. Then in college I became close friends with two really cool lesbians and I found out that they were stonger Christian than I was. One even became the student head of all the campus ministries (I think her title was "Chapel President" or something).

It completely changed my views and it was based on the actual people and who they were, not what other people said.

[Matches Malone]

You're wrong, the Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting interracial marriage in the 1960s. I"m going out now, will provide a link later.

Assuming that's true, it doesn't create a "right to interracial marriage". The law would have been struck down based on some other, already existing right. It may seem like a semantic difference, but it's not. On the occasions when the Supreme Court has deviated from that procedure (like Roe v. Wade or any of the other so-called substantive due process cases), it has come under pretty heavy fire for judicial activism.

[Pepsigirl]

I was talking to a kid at school why he was against gay marriage (because he is) , and you know what he said? "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." :rolleyes: It's sad how people can't form their own opinions, regardless of religion, especially since homosexuality has been going on in cultures around the world for hundreds of years now and the world hasn't caved in (although it seems like it's about to).

[matterconsumer]

I was talking to a kid at school why he was against gay marriage (because he is) , and you know what he said? "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." :rolleyes: It's sad how people can't form their own opinions, regardless of religion, especially since homosexuality has been going on in cultures around the world for hundreds of years now and the world hasn't caved in (although it seems like it's about to).

Why would anyone form their own opinion when they're convinced that they're right? Can we be surprised that people who believe that God condemns homosexuality are not likely to be swayed?

If you believe in God and that God condemns homosexuality isn't that the most compelling argument? It's decided. Sure people will go on and do things that they believe God is against but they'll tell you that they're doing wrong and will be held responsible.

Homosexuality has been around -- but there aren't that many isles of Lesbos -- but it hasn't been close to the dominant sexual expression.

God's been around for a while too.

[Kyuubi]

Such a sad thing, i'm just grateful my state didn't have that and that our Stem Cell prop passed :)

[stealthwise]

Why would anyone form their own opinion when they're convinced that they're right? Can we be surprised that people who believe that God condemns homosexuality are not likely to be swayed?


I would prefer it if people were to form their opinions based on whether or not a viewpoint or action is likely to cause harm to or restrict another person (or persons).

[Ian Boothby]

The US Constitution may not have been written by judges but it sure as hell was written by lawyers.

And Mia, how does a human rights case like extending benefits to people who are plainly discriminatedted against affect you? Your church is not being forced to perform gay weddings, you are not being forced to participate in gay weddings... so what's the big deal? I haven't noticed anything different about my life since the law was changed here, I haven't even gotten any invites to weddings since the few friends I know who are gay aren't all that interested in marriage anyway. But you better believe that when and if I get an invite I will be there with bells on. So really, lay it out for me Mia, is it just "icky" or are you worried your kids are going to somehow be "turned gay" by some rainbow agenda? Like it or not, this is a multicultural society run by secular law. Go live your life and those who you don't agree with will live their own.

-Pia on Ian's computer again.

[matterconsumer]

I would prefer it if people were to form their opinions based on whether or not a viewpoint or action is likely to cause harm to or restrict another person (or persons).

Fair enough.

Though to be fair, those who believe that God has commanded them to do this or that do indeed believe that it is for the best.

The real question of course is how one bridges the impasse. It's correct to note that those who believe that God has said this or that are not going to be easily swayed.

It's not so much that they're being anti-intellectual it's just for them when the sky is blue the sky is blue.

On the opposite side the sky is also blue and it's really unlikely that they're going to believe that God has commanded them to believe this or that. If they believe in God then they believe that God is ok with homosexuality.

Both sides (not everyone though) have their share who simply throw insults.

Tolerance is a difficult middle ground.

[Crinos]

I was talking to a kid at school why he was against gay marriage (because he is) , and you know what he said? "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." :rolleyes: It's sad how people can't form their own opinions, regardless of religion, especially since homosexuality has been going on in cultures around the world for hundreds of years now and the world hasn't caved in (although it seems like it's about to).

... "God made adam and eve, not adam and steve."

...

You know, on the rumbles board I just saw comic scans where Super man hit Darkseid so hard stuffing flew out. And yet it wasnt quite as stupid as that "Adam and Steve" thing.

Just a basic example of how conservative religious assholes who use the word of god to force their paranoia and bigotry on others have no real arguement against Gay marriages, and have to come up with lame ass catch phrases instead.

Now, I'm not the worlds best catholic, but I say my prayers before I go to bed, I give the thumbs up to images of Jesus, and I thank god whenever someone gives a positive review to my work or I pass a hard test. And I personally, truely believe, that god wants people to do good and live happy, constructive lives.

And if that means being married to someone of the same gender, what the hell, he's god. He's cool with it.

If there is a hell, it isnt filled with gay people, its filled with religious bigots who pevert gods teachings for their own ends. And to me at least thats the worst sin of them all.

[Cam63]

Thanks, Crinos. It's nice to hear from decent religious folk like yourself occasionally to remind us all you don't need to be a smug dick to show you believe in God or whoever.

The wankers who use their religious beliefs for destructive purposes really boil my guts.

[taintedlunch]

Isn't all this bickering really over semantics? One side wants to call it "marriage", while the other side wants to say "civil union". I think that gay marriage is inevitable, but clearly, as the polls showed, America is not ready for it. While it may not be right, neither is trying to force gay marriage on a society that's not ready for it or using terms like 'bigot'. Isn't there a middle ground that we can reach until America is ready?

[Ian Boothby]

Isn't all this bickering really over semantics? One side wants to call it "marriage", while the other side wants to say "civil union". I think that gay marriage is inevitable, but clearly, as the polls showed, America is not ready for it. While it may not be right, neither is trying to force gay marriage on a society that's not ready for it or using terms like 'bigot'. Isn't there a middle ground that we can reach until America is ready?


What do you think will change America's mind in the future? Do you think the country will get less religious?
America not being ready for it is indeed shameful.

[heystacy]

As someone who is living in the middle of the "Bible Belt", I can tell you that many people will not change their minds on the topic of gay marrige.

There's a lot of intolerance to get past. Some people still haven't shaken their racist beleifs yet.

[the4thpip]

There is no "right to interracial marriage". Even when African-Americans were slaves, I don't think there would have been a legal prohibition against such a thing. And African-Americans were freed from slavery by way of a series of constitutional amendment, for which there is a procedure. That procedure does not involve judges; it involves the duly-elected legislature and president.
Loving v. Virginia

Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C. because their home state of Virginia still upheld the antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County, Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in jail, but promised the sentence would be suspended if they agreed to leave the state and not return for 25 years. Forced to move, they returned to Washington D.C. where, in 1963, they initiated a suit challenging the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation law. In March of 1966, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the law, but in June of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled the law unconstitutional. Thus, in 1967 the 16 states which still had antimiscegenation laws on their books were forced to erase them.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html

Might I add that those who do not remember the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them?

[the4thpip]

Assuming that's true, it doesn't create a "right to interracial marriage". The law would have been struck down based on some other, already existing right. It may seem like a semantic difference, but it's not. On the occasions when the Supreme Court has deviated from that procedure (like Roe v. Wade or any of the other so-called substantive due process cases), it has come under pretty heavy fire for judicial activism.
It's not about creating a law there, and it's not about creating a law for same-sex couples now. It's stating that we all as human beings have the same rights to enter into an accepted partnership with the person we love. Some of us are denied that right now in the US. I am.

[Ian Boothby]

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html

Might I add that those who do not remember the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them?

And those that feel that never made any mistakes are re-elected.

[the4thpip]

Isn't all this bickering really over semantics? One side wants to call it "marriage", while the other side wants to say "civil union". I think that gay marriage is inevitable, but clearly, as the polls showed, America is not ready for it. While it may not be right, neither is trying to force gay marriage on a society that's not ready for it or using terms like 'bigot'. Isn't there a middle ground that we can reach until America is ready?
You missed the part where the Ohio law would outlaw not only Civil Unions, but possibly ANY legal contract between same-sex partners. A while ago, a county in Tennesse tried to ban gays - not gay marriage, they tried to ban us as people!

Tenn. County Officials Seek to Ban Gays
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
AP

DAYTON, Tenn. — Rhea County (search) commissioners unanimously voted to ask state lawmakers to introduce legislation amending Tennessee's criminal code so the county can charge homosexuals (search) with crimes against nature.

"We need to keep them out of here," said Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the motion.

County Attorney Gary Fritts also was asked by Fugate to find the best way to enact a local law banning homosexuals from living in Rhea County.

The Rhea County action came after the Senate Judiciary Committee (search) voted 7-1 Tuesday for a bill that would prohibit legal recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships among homosexuals in Tennessee. Gay marriages already are prohibited in the state.

The state senator who represents Rhea County, Tommy Kilby, D-Wartburg, said Wednesday he hadn't seen the resolution and couldn't comment on it until he did.

"Yesterday in Judiciary Committee, they passed out a bill basically saying we will not recognize same-sex partnerships or civil unions from other states or foreign countries. I voted for that, and that's my position on that issue," Kilby said.

State Rep. Jim Vincent couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday.

"We need to keep them out of here."
This is not about semantics. This is not even about faith. This is about the crackers needing a new caste of n*ggers because the old ones got too many rights to push around and lynch properly anymore. And the rest of the country is getting sucked into that vortex because the Neocons are using gaybashing to cement their power base. I'm just about ready to give up on America.

[heystacy]

You missed the part where the Ohio law would outlaw not only Civil Unions, but possibly ANY legal contract between same-sex partners. A while ago, a county in Tennesse tried to ban gays - not gay marriage, they tried to ban us as people!

Tenn. County Officials Seek to Ban Gays

"We need to keep them out of here."
This is not about semantics. This is not even about faith. This is about the crackers needing a new caste of n*ggers because the old ones got too many rights to push around and lynch properly anymore. And the rest of the country is getting sucked into that vortex because the Neocons are using gaybashing to cement their power base. I'm just about ready to give up on America.

That's filthy. No matter what anyone believes, they do not have the right to act immoral, and ignorant while expecting to violate some's civilities. Some people do wrap themsevles under a blanket of faith, but it's to coceal their true nature, not to shelter their virtues.

BTW some people are still as racist, and disgusting as ever. Some conceal it better than others.

Hate groups are the worst, because their thoughts and actions aren't rational.

[kingdom2000]

At least you are not in the state of Georgia. They passed the admendment and used deceptive means to do it.

The admendment in georgia was actually two parts a) the ban on gay marriage b) refusal to recognize any legal standing for gay couples. (note in georgia though regular couples do have legal standing)

Now the deception is that on the ballot only part a was mentioned. Most people where not even aware of part b. The only way to know really was to look it up as most commentators, the press, those for it etc never mentioned part b. The just hammered the whole "for the children" and "future of the country" nonsense. Nevermind its not been made clear what gay marriage has to do with moral integrity with a 50% divorce rate and more hetero violence.

So yay not only was the Georgia constiution cluttered with a law that restricts rights but deceptive means where used to pass it.

[the4thpip]

Here is some info about the Ohio law:

On Nov. 2, Ohio will vote on Issue 1, a state constitutional amendment that purports to simply ban same-sex marriage but actually goes much further. Ten other states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah -- are also voting on anti-gay marriage amendments. They're all expected to pass, most by wide margins. Eight of the state amendments prohibit domestic partnerships or any other public benefits or recognition for gay couples. But as a headline on the front page of Columbus Dispatch recently said, "Issue 1 wording makes it the strictest." Polls show support for it hovering above 60 percent.

Issue 1 will force Ohio's cities and universities to stop offering domestic partner benefits, including health insurance. Right now, such benefits are offered by the city of Columbus, Ohio's Miami University, Ohio University and Ohio State University, the largest university in America. Cleveland Heights has a domestic partnership registry, and some Ohio public schools give gay employees family leave to care for ailing partners. Issue 1 would probably mean they could no longer do so. Because Ohio doesn't allow two-parent gay adoptions, Reeves had to go through a lengthy legal process to become Frannie and Charlies' legal co-parent. Her lawyer told her that if Issue 1 passes, her parental rights could be nullified.

The amendment's impact won't stop there. "Because the state can't create any legal status for unmarried couples, it's very possible that domestic-violence protection orders could no longer be used if there's a domestic violence situation with an unmarried couple," says Alan Melamed, an attorney and chairman of the anti-Issue 1 group Ohioans Protecting the Constitution. Private companies can continue to offer domestic partner benefits, he adds, but "if the employee feels that those benefits were being improperly denied, an employee won't be able to go to court and enforce those benefits."

Issue 1 is only two sentences long, but there's a world of uncertainty in it. While the first sentence simply decrees that marriage is between a man and a woman, the second says, "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

Like many gay couples, Reeves and Mamlin have a whole raft of documents designed to "approximate" marriage, and they have no way of knowing which ones the courts will decide that Ohio can't "recognize." Will agreements that allow them to visit each other in the hospital still be valid? Will their wills?

Many of the amendments being voted on in November raise similar questions. Georgia's, for example, strips courts of the ability to hear cases arising from same-sex partnerships. Lawyers say that could render even private contracts between couples -- things like power of attorney and property-sharing agreements -- unenforceable.

After looking at several of the state amendments, Ken Choe, a staff attorney at the ACLU's lesbian and gay rights project, says, "We are completely perplexed by the language. We don't know what far-reaching consequences these could have if they become law."

In Ohio, that's partly why many of the state's most prominent Republicans, including Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, Attorney General Jim Petro and Sens. Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, oppose it, despite their opposition to gay marriage. "It's an ambiguous invitation to litigation that will result in unintended consequences for senior citizens and for any two persons who share living accommodations," Taft said in a statement issued Wednesday.



http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/18/gayohio/print.html

[sixstringguild]

This is not about semantics. This is not even about faith. This is about the crackers needing a new caste of n*ggers because the old ones got too many rights to push around and lynch properly anymore.

Once again, those whom you disagree with, you put words in their mouths and make assumptions.

By the way, you better believe it's about faith, because it's about morals and how people view right and wrong. Where do a vast majority of Americans get their value system? Religion. Not just Christianity, but Islam, Judiasm, whatever...

[the4thpip]

They want to charge gays with "crimes against nature."
That would then be biology I guess, and not faith.

[sixstringguild]

They want to charge gays with "crimes against nature."
That would then be biology I guess, and not faith.

I'm sure they're being viewed going hand in hand.

[Dreadstar]

At least you are not in the state of Georgia. They passed the admendment and used deceptive means to do it.

The admendment in georgia was actually two parts a) the ban on gay marriage b) refusal to recognize any legal standing for gay couples. (note in georgia though regular couples do have legal standing)

Now the deception is that on the ballot only part a was mentioned. Most people where not even aware of part b. The only way to know really was to look it up as most commentators, the press, those for it etc never mentioned part b. The just hammered the whole "for the children" and "future of the country" nonsense. Nevermind its not been made clear what gay marriage has to do with moral integrity with a 50% divorce rate and more hetero violence.

So yay not only was the Georgia constiution cluttered with a law that restricts rights but deceptive means where used to pass it.

I bet it wouldn't have mattered if both parts were on the ballot.

Like they were in Ohio. Yeah, there may be some possibility to claim deception, but what is the reality? Would that have made enough difference to vote it down?

It's my opinion that the answer to that is no.

[Dreadstar]

They want to charge gays with "crimes against nature."
That would then be biology I guess, and not faith.

Who is "they?"

[Huh?]

I would like to know if all of the God loving Christians that voted for this stupid ban would support a ban on pre-marital sex. After all, that is something that is not allowed in Christian religions. So it would seem to me that we ought to start outlawing that too while we're at it.

Or, better yet, just ban Christians from having pre-marital sex. We could ammend the law to state that "pre-marital sex is the legal right of all non-christian people." We could have Jail time for violators.

My point is, there are a lot of things that Christians believe are sins that are not banned, and never will be because Christians only follow and enforce the rules that they want to.

Marriage has nothing to do with politics, it is a religious rite. If we are going to ban gays from marrying, on religious grounds; the government should stop recognizing any marriages at all.

[the4thpip]

Who is "they?"
Read my post about Tennessee on the last page.

[sixstringguild]

I would like to know if all of the God loving Christians that voted for this stupid ban would support a ban on pre-marital sex. After all, that is something that is not allowed in Christian religions. So it would seem to me that we ought to start outlawing that too while we're at it.

Or, better yet, just ban Christians from having pre-marital sex. We could ammend the law to state that "pre-marital sex is the legal right of all non-christian people." We could have Jail time for violators.

My point is, there are a lot of things that Christians believe are sins that are not banned, and never will be because Christians only follow and enforce the rules that they want to.

Marriage has nothing to do with politics, it is a religious rite. If we are going to ban gays from marrying, on religious grounds; the government should stop recognizing any marriages at all.

Here's an "open-minded" person really conveying his thoughts well...

dude, get a grip. If you haven't noticed, the ban is not on gays but the state's right to refuse to accept them as married couples and all the benefits that come along with it. With that being said, if you want to be gay, go be gay. Where in the world did any of the states outlaw being gay?

With that being said, you are referring to a lot of hypocrisy in the church today and I can see where you are coming from. Christians better put their money where their mouth is and start walking the walk.

[StoneGold]

dude, get a grip. If you haven't noticed, the ban is not on gays but the state's right to refuse to accept them as married couples and all the benefits that come along with it. With that being said, if you want to be gay, go be gay. Where in the world did any of the states outlaw being gay?

They are called sodomy laws. 14 states had them. True, it was technically not illegal to be homosexual, but it was illegal to do anything about it, so it was pretty much the same thing. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003. The majority opinion is based on privacy rights and is written by Kennedy, joined by Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stephens. O'Connor concurred on equal protection grounds.

[Huh?]

Here's an "open-minded" person really conveying his thoughts well...

dude, get a grip. If you haven't noticed, the ban is not on gays but the state's right to refuse to accept them as married couples and all the benefits that come along with it. With that being said, if you want to be gay, go be gay. Where in the world did any of the states outlaw being gay?

With that being said, you are referring to a lot of hypocrisy in the church today and I can see where you are coming from. Christians better put their money where their mouth is and start walking the walk.They are certainly not making it as easy to be gay as say... a christian. No one told blacks in the first half of this century not to be black, they just told them which fountain they could drink out of. Making excuses for people that are limiting an american human beings rights, no matter how small, is wrong IMHO.

Not trying to fight with any of you guys, just feel strongly about this one :)

[sk716]

I'm just about ready to give up on America.

I think I did yesterday afternoon.
*wondering how cold it gets in Toronto*

[kingdom2000]

One thing people forget is aa "good" christian tends to be full of much hatred. I have yet to meet one that doesn't have this seed of hate festering in them. Something very much against the teachings of Jesus but there nonetheless. I guess its a result of the "us" vs "them" thinking that the churches themselves teach.

[heystacy]

I believe some of the intolerance for gay marriage is due in part to a lack of knowldge and understanding. I know a lot of people feel they'll be throwing their morallity out of the window if they accept gay marriages. I've heard some heated arguments on this topic.

That being said, I don't think some people have a solid concept of a gay person. A lot of people see the stereotype of a femmine, passive man, or a butch assetive woman. Some believe that gay people are "confused," and are lusting after the same sex. Mind you, we all know gay people aren't the only lustful beings on the planet. Also a lot of people don't fit the stereotype. I think that scares some people for some reason.

I do think that if people sat down, and hammered out their differences, they would find some kind of common ground. That won't happen until people get some knowldge in their heads. That goes towards all types of discrimminations, prejudices, and racist attitudes.

[Cam63]

It's a strange thing, Kingdom and it puzzles me. I too, find many " loving " Christians are some of the most unpleasant people I've ever met.

[Crowley]

Here's an "open-minded" person really conveying his thoughts well...

dude, get a grip. If you haven't noticed, the ban is not on gays but the state's right to refuse to accept them as married couples and all the benefits that come along with it. With that being said, if you want to be gay, go be gay. Where in the world did any of the states outlaw being gay?

So if gays can't be married because Christians are following the Bible so closely, when should we expect the death penalty as result for not following the Sabbath?

[Huh?]

So if gays can't be married because Christians are following the Bible so closely, when should we expect the death penalty as result for not following the Sabbath?Not sure if you were agreeing with me or sixstring emporer, but I think that we will be talking a lot more in the next few years about religion playing a part in government, and that is a shame. The two should remain completely separate.

[matterconsumer]

So if gays can't be married because Christians are following the Bible so closely, when should we expect the death penalty as result for not following the Sabbath?

Guess you haven't been hanging with the right Jews.

Or stoned either.

Seriously, recall back in time when it was mentioned that the Sabbath was made for man --- at any rate given that there isn't agreement about what day the Sabbath is just imagine what that would do to the economy if large numbers were actively observing it.

And it was an extreme disadvantage to travellers when so many of the businesses were closed --- couldn't buy gas or food.

Probably a good idea to modify what it meant to be observant.

[Ian Boothby]

Once again, those whom you disagree with, you put words in their mouths and make assumptions.

By the way, you better believe it's about faith, because it's about morals and how people view right and wrong. Where do a vast majority of Americans get their value system? Religion. Not just Christianity, but Islam, Judiasm, whatever...

I think they get them from their parents, school and the community. Religion might cross over into that but it isn't the basis for the values.

[Crowley]

Not sure if you were agreeing with me or sixstring emporer, but I think that we will be talking a lot more in the next few years about religion playing a part in government, and that is a shame. The two should remain completely separate.

awesome... so sixstring when can we expect the death penalty for Sabbath violators?

[PatrickG]

Okay.

My question for supporters of the ban (what few there are here anyway):

Say homosexuality will land someone in Hell.

Why should that be a crime? Why should the law treat homosexuals differently?

Quietly, heterosexually lusting after your co-worker will also land you in Hell and I don't see anyone arguing to criminalize lustful glances. Of course, I guess we could solve that problem with burkas.

What does the law have to do with God? God didn't found this country. Jesus didn't tell the early Christians to petition Caesar for legal recognition. God made it clear in the Old Testament/Torah that he didn't recommend the foundation of the Israeli government/monarchy.

Everyone talks about the separation of church and state like it's just the evil secular government trying to crush God. I think God can take care of Himself. If anything, it's God that has a history of wanting nothing to do with government.

Using God's name to support government policies seems like the very definition of "taking the Lord's name in vain" to me.

And usually, it has less to do with establishing a holy government than it does government trying to lay claim to God and push Him around the same way they bully private citizens.

Trying to link law and morality, God and state --- It seems like the highest form of blasphemy in my eyes.

[taintedlunch]

Okay.

My question for supporters of the ban (what few there are here anyway):

Say homosexuality will land someone in Hell.

Why should that be a crime? Why should the law treat homosexuals differently?

No one's saying that homosexuality is criminal or that you're going to hell for it. Personally, I don't believe either, but of course there are many people who thnk so, but not at the rate of six-to-one as the polls showed.


What does the law have to do with God? God didn't found this country. Jesus didn't tell the early Christians to petition Caesar for legal recognition. God made it clear in the Old Testament/Torah that he didn't recommend the foundation of the Israeli government/monarchy.

For a lot of people, it's not even about God. I'm sure there are many lapsed Christians and the like who still voted for the ban. I'm also sure there are many that don't even know why. I don't see how you can really justify the ban; it goes against the spirit of America and what it was founded on. Could it be a reaction of people who feel that acceptance of gay marriage is being forced on them? The answer is more complicated than words like bigotry can describe. Social change takes a long time.

I have to ask: would civil unions, with all of the legal rights or married couples, be enough for committed gay couples? Or does the word "marriage" have to be used? If the legal rights are there, does it matter that your love is called 'civil union' instead of 'marriage'? If you took a vote on civil unions with full legal rights, I think (hope) that the vote would be six-to-one in the other direction.

[That JonoGuy]

I have to ask: would civil unions, with all of the legal rights or married couples, be enough for committed gay couples? Or does the word "marriage" have to be used? If the legal rights are there, does it matter that your love is called 'civil union' instead of 'marriage'? If you took a vote on civil unions with full legal rights, I think (hope) that the vote would be six-to-one in the other direction.

Me personally, I have no qualms about there being civil unions with the full rights that are given within marriage. And If I were to get a civil union, I'd still tell people I got married.

I don't think the "sanctity" of marriage is really at the heart of this at all either. The fear of the "gay agenda" making it's way into our culture is what scares them.

[Kyuubi]

All those voters were thinking the same thing.


WWMIOJD?


What Would My Interpretation Of Jesus Do?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

(This was Lewis Black's words on the Gay Voting Issue)




"11 states voted the Gay Marriage ban In.Yes people of those states...you Rocked the Vote and Smeared the Queers!"



I have no Idea if Black was protesting the New Laws or what.

[StoneGold]

(This was Lewis Black's words on the Gay Voting Issue)




"11 states voted the Gay Marriage ban In.Yes people of those states...you Rocked the Vote and Smeared the Queers!"



I have no Idea if Black was protesting the New Laws or what.
Right after he said it, as the crowd was moaning, he said something to the effect that he was being sarcastic.

[Spike-X]

At least the American voters got to have a say whether or not they want to allow homosexual marriage. Canadians had no such choice at all. It was forced on the public by a group of un-elected judges.

How terrible. Nobody asked you whether you thought one group of human beings deserved the right to live their lives together the same as other human beings do and not cause you or anybody else harm in any way. They just went ahead and gave these people equal rights without checking if it was okay with you first.

Boo.

Frickin'.

Hoo.

[Spike-X]

If there is a hell, it isnt filled with gay people, its filled with religious bigots who pevert gods teachings for their own ends.

Very nicely said, sir and/or ma'am.

[sixstringguild]

Everybody, please read:

In the NEW TESTAMENT (not part of old Jewish laws like Leviticus is), Paul writes in Romans 1:22-27:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Also:
From Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 19:4-6:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

There are a couple of examples from the New Testament why most mainstream Christians feel the way they do. Now, you may not agree w/ it or believe in it, but you CANNOT say that it isn't there written in the Bible. If you don't believe me, go look up the passages, the references are there.

I'm sure the can o' worms has just exploded...

[Charles RB]

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So... Jesus is against divorce. What's that got to do with gay marraige?

[Huh?]

How terrible. Nobody asked you whether you thought one group of human beings deserved the right to live their lives together the same as other human beings do and not cause you or anybody else harm in any way. They just went ahead and gave these people equal rights without checking if it was okay with you first.

Boo.

Frickin'.

Hoo.You are dead on with that post spike. There is nothing triumphant about the fact that we (Americans) all the got the chance to decide whether certain human beings deserve the same rights as everyone else. It disgusts me when people rationalize this vote - or the fact that we voted on it at all.

[Huh?]

There are a couple of examples from the New Testament why most mainstream Christians feel the way they do. Now, you may not agree w/ it or believe in it, but you CANNOT say that it isn't there written in the Bible. If you don't believe me, go look up the passages, the references are there.

I'm sure the can o' worms has just exploded...And here, Sixstring, is part of the first page of the first chapter of Moby Dick. Herman Melville writes:

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago -- never mind how long precisely -- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off -- then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

There now is your insular city of the Manhattoes, belted round by wharves as Indian isles by coral reefs -- commerce surrounds it with her surf. Right and left, the streets take you waterward. Its extreme down-town is the battery, where that noble mole is washed by waves, and cooled by breezes, which a few hours previous were out of sight of land. Look at the crowds of water-gazers there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BIBLE IS A BOOK! Just like Moby Dick and every other book ever written. If someone stood up and said something is wrong because they read it in The Sweet Valley High, they would be laughed out of town. Religious people can believe whatever silly thing they want to, just keep it to yourself.

[sixstringguild]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BIBLE IS A BOOK! Just like Moby Dick and every other book ever written. If someone stood up and said something is wrong because they read it in The Sweet Valley High, they would be laughed out of town. Religious people can believe whatever silly thing they want to, just keep it to yourself.

OK, tell us how you really feel... :rolleyes:

[PatrickG]

You've established that it's a sin, sxistringguild, assuming that you believe in the infallibility of every word in the Bible. (Remember that the assembling of the Bible as one holy text is a dogma that didn't exist in Jesus' lifetime and that whether or not every book or every writer was divinely inspired IS debatable. And whether or not there were changes made to the Bible to condemn homosexuality is also debatable.)

But let's assume it's a sin.

Why the heck should God's commandments dictate government policy? He's not a registered voter. He's not even a citizen.

Christianity is not recognized as an official religion in this country.

So why should Christian morals determine law?

[Huh?]

OK, tell us how you really feel... :rolleyes:Yeah, looking back at that post I seem a little pissed (which I am). Probably would have written it differently now, just five minutes later, but maybe it will spark some good discussion. :)

[Ian Boothby]

[QUOTE=sixstringguild]Everybody, please read:

In the NEW TESTAMENT (not part of old Jewish laws like Leviticus is), Paul writes in Romans 1:22-27:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
QUOTE]


Hey, take your soft core porn somewhere else.

[sixstringguild]

You've established that it's a sin, sxistringguild, assuming that you believe in the infallibility of every word in the Bible. (Remember that the assembling of the Bible as one holy text is a dogma that didn't exist in Jesus' lifetime and that whether or not every book or every writer was divinely inspired IS debatable. And whether or not there were changes made to the Bible to condemn homosexuality is also debatable.)

As I said, you either believe it or you don't. I'm just giving the mainstream Christian point of view.

But let's assume it's a sin.

Why the heck should God's commandments dictate government policy? He's not a registered voter. He's not even a citizen.

Christianity is not recognized as an official religion in this country.

So why should Christian morals determine law?

You're right, He isn't a citizen of the US or any country, but He is the Creator and He rules the universe. If you believe that, why would you think His laws have no merit in today's world? Again...you either believe it or you don't. I'm just giving you the Christian perspective and not trying to sway you. I'm not looking for fights or angry rhetoric...

[Mia]

They are certainly not making it as easy to be gay as say... a christian. No one told blacks in the first half of this century not to be black, they just told them which fountain they could drink out of. Making excuses for people that are limiting an american human beings rights, no matter how small, is wrong IMHO.

Not trying to fight with any of you guys, just feel strongly about this one :)


What does being "Black" have to do with being gay? How does one be "Black"?

[Evan Waters]

As I said, you either believe it or you don't. I'm just giving the mainstream Christian point of view.


You're right, He isn't a citizen of the US or any country, but He is the Creator and He rules the universe. If you believe that, why would you think His laws have no merit in today's world? Again...you either believe it or you don't. I'm just giving you the Christian perspective and not trying to sway you. I'm not looking for fights or angry rhetoric...

Don't generalize about Christians, okay?

I'm an Episcopalian. I'm not a biblical literalist, and I think the disproportionate amount of attention the church gives to matters of sexuality, particularly homosexuality, is absurd. I am in favor of gay marriage, in the fullest sense of the term ("civil union" has a separate-but-equal connotation to it.)

I am ashamed of my country right now.

[Huh?]

What does being "Black" have to do with being gay? How does one be "Black"?A person cannot choose whether they are black or white. The same way a person cannot choose whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

[Huh?]

A person cannot choose whether they are black or white. The same way a person cannot choose whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.I'll also add that there is nothing wrong with being black or white, homo or hetero sexual. That is why it is disgusting that people in this country think there is.

[Mia]

A person cannot choose whether they are black or white. The same way a person cannot choose whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

No a person can not choose whether they are black or white.

But a person can choose whether or not to act on their homosexual or hetrosexual impulse.

[Dreadstar]

Okay.

My question for supporters of the ban (what few there are here anyway):

Say homosexuality will land someone in Hell.

Why should that be a crime? Why should the law treat homosexuals differently?


You know what? I talked to a pretty religious friend about this last week, and out of curiosity asked how he was going to go with it. He said he was going to vote against the amendment, because it wasn't his place to pass judgement.

Just pointing out that not all of the "religious" folk voted lock-step.

[Huh?]

No a person can not choose whether they are black or white.

But a person can choose whether or not to act on their homosexual or hetrosexual impulse.Holy S**t! You are the reason why I can't stand people that support the ban. That is the most ignorant statement I have ever read on CBR. I suppose you have some way of proving that.

[sixstringguild]

Don't generalize about Christians, okay?

I'm an Episcopalian. I'm not a biblical literalist, and I think the disproportionate amount of attention the church gives to matters of sexuality, particularly homosexuality, is absurd. I am in favor of gay marriage, in the fullest sense of the term ("civil union" has a separate-but-equal connotation to it.)

I am ashamed of my country right now.

I figured people were smart enough to realize that I didn't mean everyone who calls themselves a Christian, I said "mainstream".

[sixstringguild]

I'll also add that there is nothing wrong with being black or white, homo or hetero sexual. That is why it is disgusting that people in this country think there is.

who said it's wrong to be black or white or heterosexual? Dont' put words in people's mouths.

[Dreadstar]

Holy S**t! You are the reason why I can't stand people that support the ban. That is the most ignorant statement I have ever read on CBR. I suppose you have some way of proving that.


You may be reading what he said wrong. By putting the verb " to act" in there, he becomes completely correct, in context.

[Mia]

Holy S**t! You are the reason why I can't stand people that support the ban. That is the most ignorant statement I have ever read on CBR. I suppose you have some way of proving that.


What is there to prove?

[Mia]

who said it's wrong to be black or white or heterosexual? Dont' put words in people's mouths.


Yeah. That's what I find funny (if not hypocritical) about people like that. They can't back up their argument so they resort to name calling or put words in your mouth. It's why I generally don't get involved in these "conversations."

[Ian Boothby]

No a person can not choose whether they are black or white.

But a person can choose whether or not to act on their homosexual or hetrosexual impulse.

Okay then a black person can also dye their skin or wear a lot of make up and not let people know their background. It's ridiculous but so is asking a person to go against their orientation for their entire life.

[Huh?]

who said it's wrong to be black or white or heterosexual? Dont' put words in people's mouths.I never accused anyone here of saying that. Turn on your TV tonight and watch any news show dealing with this issue. Count how many people that represent religion call it wrong to be homosexual.

[sixstringguild]

I never accused anyone here of saying that. Turn on your TV tonight and watch any news show dealing with this issue. Count how many people that represent religion call it wrong to be homosexual.

Do you have a show in mind?

[Crowley]

Everybody, please read:

In the NEW TESTAMENT (not part of old Jewish laws like Leviticus is), Paul writes in Romans 1:22-27:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Also:
From Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 19:4-6:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

There are a couple of examples from the New Testament why most mainstream Christians feel the way they do. Now, you may not agree w/ it or believe in it, but you CANNOT say that it isn't there written in the Bible. If you don't believe me, go look up the passages, the references are there.

I'm sure the can o' worms has just exploded...

I was raised Catholic, so I'm well aware of the "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"

Jesus wasn't much fore people being judgemental, because it's not for us to judge but for god to judge.

So then let homosexuals do as they please.

[Huh?]

What is there to prove?Prove that if homosexuals didn't act on their sexual instincts that the US would welcome them with open arms and embrace their lifestyle. Guess what, they wouldn't.

If this country wants to define marriage as between a man and a woman, then I would say that gay people getting married would be a very heterosexual thing to do.

[Huh?]

Do you have a show in mind?O'Reilly Factor, Lou Dobbs, Crossfire, Paula Zahn, Hardball... If any of them have someone on that represents religion you will here them call homosexuality wrong. I think you know what I am referring to without me having to list all of this out for you. :)

[Huh?]

I was raised Catholic, so I'm well aware of the "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"

Jesus wasn't much fore people being judgemental, because it's not for us to judge but for god to judge.

So then let homosexuals do as they please.Why do you think so we here so little from religious people that feel the way you do? I happen to think you make a good point, but I rarely hear it made. And I think that people like me who are not religious hear far too many people that are involved with religion choosing what rules to follow.

[sixstringguild]

O'Reilly Factor, Lou Dobbs, Crossfire, Paula Zahn, Hardball... If any of them have someone on that represents religion you will here them call homosexuality wrong. I think you know what I am referring to without me having to list all of this out for you. :)

I don't know if I'm following you. What is the point? That there won't be? If there are, what does that mean?

[That JonoGuy]

No a person can not choose whether they are black or white.

But a person can choose whether or not to act on their homosexual or hetrosexual impulse.

So you are saying you decided not to act on your homosexual impulses. Gotcha. :D

[Huh?]

I don't know if I'm following you. What is the point? That there won't be? If there are, what does that mean?You asked several posts ago, "who is saying homosexuality is wrong." I am telling you: the Church. You asked for places you could hear someone say that, I am telling you: news programs. I didn't lead us down this road, but I am not going to read threads that I disagree with or with questions for me, and not respond.

[Dreadstar]

You asked several posts ago, "who is saying homosexuality is wrong." I am telling you: the Church.

OK I can buy that, depending on the church, but:



You asked for places you could hear someone say that, I am telling you: news programs.

Really? Where? That'd certainly be news to me.

[Huh?]

Really? Where? That'd certainly be news to me.I am not talking about the host of the program or the thrust of the story, just what is spewing from the mouth of the person giving the religious perspective. Jerry Falwell is someone that comes to mind.

[Dreadstar]

I am not talking about the host of the program or the thrust of the story, just what is spewing from the mouth of the person giving the religious perspective. Jerry Falwell is someone that comes to mind.



mmmmmmmm-kay.

[Joe Rice]

Why do you think so we here so little from religious people that feel the way you do? I happen to think you make a good point, but I rarely hear it made. And I think that people like me who are not religious hear far too many people that are involved with religion choosing what rules to follow.

It's not that religious people don't feel that way. We do. I do. I'm not about to judge anybody for who they sleep with, it's not my place. But when the news goes looking, they usually want to get a loudass nutcase. They're the more entertaining ones.

[Huh?]

It's not that religious people don't feel that way. We do. I do. I'm not about to judge anybody for who they sleep with, it's not my place. But when the news goes looking, they usually want to get a loudass nutcase. They're the more entertaining ones.True, but more people like you need to get outspoken about this because america isn't in the comic book resources forum, they're tuning in to cable news each night. I understand that the news will never look for a sensible calm guest - because it isn't good for ratings. But what about a loud religious person that feels the way you do and will go at it with the likes of Jerry Falwell? Because most of the time it's Jerry Falwell vs. an Anarchist or some other very extreme guest and I think that too many religious people in this country form an alliance with the likes of Jerry because the anarchist is hard for them to relate to. I don't know, I'd like to see someone from the Religious community that religious people respect get up and say "there is nothing wrong with homosexuality" or "we have no right, as christians, to judge." Maybe somebody has, but I didn't hear it.

[Joe Rice]

My only answer is that people of faith that feel like I do don't tend to be loud.

[kingdom2000]

Three words why religion should never ever under any circumstances dictate terms to government or its citizens > The Dark Ages

The one time religion ruled all facets of society, the result was human race eached a point of zero growth in all ways can count societal development. 300 hundred years that can be summed up by one word - death.

Yet, apparently that lesson wasn't enough for the fools of today. They are hoping to repeat those mistakes. Personally if religion has to dictate terms to the US ill take Judiasm, Buddiasm, hell even Muslim over Christianity.

[Charles RB]

Personally if religion has to dictate terms to the US ill take Judiasm, Buddiasm, hell even Muslim over Christianity.

I don't buy those religions as being any better if they were dictating government policy- case in point, Islamic theocracy nations.

[Johnny Morningstar]

If the federal and state governments want to wash their hands of marriage in general, they could go to a flat tax or a sales tax only system.

Doing so could eliminate any benefits from being married (and penalties on the single).

Then, change any state or federal programs or any law that limit beneficiaries outside of the immediate family and voila!

Marriage becomes an act in name only for everybody and free of gubment ties.

I assume gay marriage advocates want the financial benefits and not co-ownership of the m-word.

[Rob Allen]

I assume gay marriage advocates want the financial benefits and not co-ownership of the m-word.You assume incorrectly. Many, if not most, gay marriage advocates want equality. They want their relationships to be equal in every way to everyone else's relationships. That includes the words as well as the financial benefits. Getting just the financial benefits would be a step forward, but don't expect the gay-rights movement to be satisfied with that.

[stealthwise]

Fair enough.

Though to be fair, those who believe that God has commanded them to do this or that do indeed believe that it is for the best.

The real question of course is how one bridges the impasse. It's correct to note that those who believe that God has said this or that are not going to be easily swayed.

It's not so much that they're being anti-intellectual it's just for them when the sky is blue the sky is blue.

On the opposite side the sky is also blue and it's really unlikely that they're going to believe that God has commanded them to believe this or that. If they believe in God then they believe that God is ok with homosexuality.

Both sides (not everyone though) have their share who simply throw insults.

Tolerance is a difficult middle ground.

I think that when the sky is obviously orange, thinking that it's blue and everything that were to go with that, is a problem. When you can point out that something like, say, slavery is wrong and people were to argue against that ideal back in those times when it was acceptable, it's hard not to feel that "tolerance" is at issue. In this case, it's not that extreme, but "tolerance" doesn't mean imposing what you believe upon other people who obviously don't share the same system. "Live and let live" is hard when one group (or both) believes that the other is an abomination.

[matterconsumer]

"Live and let live" is hard when one group (or both) believes that the other is an abomination.

Exactly.....

[jhauge]

You assume incorrectly. Many, if not most, gay marriage advocates want equality. They want their relationships to be equal in every way to everyone else's relationships. That includes the words as well as the financial benefits. Getting just the financial benefits would be a step forward, but don't expect the gay-rights movement to be satisfied with that.

The problem gays have with persuading those against same sex marriage is much more complicated than telling yourselves it's a bunch of backwoods bible thumpers who hate gays.

The problem with a same sex marriage is it will never be equal to everyone's relationships. Marriage as an institution has been about a man and a women and the attempt to further the species and pass on financial assets to the next generation. A gay couple will never be able to produce children unless science gets involved. I do not disagree that gays have the same love for each other as hetero or that it could be even more loving. However, it's not the same.

If it's about equality, then if the hetero crowd decided to give the name marriage to gays and define another term describing a legal union between a man and a women, would gays fight that? After all, if it's about being equal, that would be different. Before the same sex marriage movement, the cry we heard from the gay community was love us for our differences. Now, it's we want to be equal. The gay community would be better off fighting incremental battles. For a community that prides itself for being different, not following the norm, radical, progressive, it does seem to appear to want the status quo.

Personally, with 50% of marriages ending in divorce, I don't see the reason gays would want the tag marriage. I would think the gay community would want to start something different and create an institution the hetero crowd would be fighting for and envious of.

[Spike-X]

The problem with a same sex marriage is it will never be equal to everyone's relationships. Marriage as an institution has been about a man and a women and the attempt to further the species and pass on financial assets to the next generation. A gay couple will never be able to produce children unless science gets involved. I do not disagree that gays have the same love for each other as hetero or that it could be even more loving. However, it's not the same.

So are you saying that if a heterosexual couple marry but are unable to naturally concieve children, their marriage isn't "equal" to a couple who do have children?

[JoshuaB]

So are you saying that if a heterosexual couple marry but are unable to naturally concieve children, their marriage isn't "equal" to a couple who do have children?


Good Point

[stealthwise]

The problem gays have with persuading those against same sex marriage is much more complicated than telling yourselves it's a bunch of backwoods bible thumpers who hate gays.

The problem with a same sex marriage is it will never be equal to everyone's relationships. Marriage as an institution has been about a man and a women and the attempt to further the species and pass on financial assets to the next generation. A gay couple will never be able to produce children unless science gets involved. I do not disagree that gays have the same love for each other as hetero or that it could be even more loving. However, it's not the same.

If it's about equality, then if the hetero crowd decided to give the name marriage to gays and define another term describing a legal union between a man and a women, would gays fight that? After all, if it's about being equal, that would be different. Before the same sex marriage movement, the cry we heard from the gay community was love us for our differences. Now, it's we want to be equal. The gay community would be better off fighting incremental battles. For a community that prides itself for being different, not following the norm, radical, progressive, it does seem to appear to want the status quo.

I think it's more that they wish to have the same recognition (legal and societal) as any other couple. There have been cases where a gay couple has been together and one partner is denied access to things that any hetero spouse would easily have the right to. For example, if one of them were to be hospitalized with a severe condition, their partner, if not recognized legally by the law, would have no say as to what to do in that situation with considerations regarding health and care.

Personally, with 50% of marriages ending in divorce, I don't see the reason gays would want the tag marriage. I would think the gay community would want to start something different and create an institution the hetero crowd would be fighting for and envious of.

Shouldn't gay couples be allowed to make their own mistakes? Just because 50% of marriages end, doesn't that mean that at least those couples that are allowed to get married are at least giving the option of trying to be together? Just saying that "oh, marriage doesn't mean much right now" doesn't lessen the impact of denying gay/lesbian couples the ability to marry.

[Yoda]

It's really oversimplfing the whole issue to say that the only opposition to gay marriage is religiously based. It's not. There are a lot of "regular" people, who are not overly religious, who while they have no problem with homosexuals are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. My parents are in their 50's and are in no way homophobic at all, yet they have a problem with gay marriage. They support civil unions and don't see anything wrong with that but still the idea of gay marriage doesn't sit well with them. I've asked them why and they can't even really articulate it. They don't know how they would vote on it yet (they live in Massachusetts so there won't be a vote here until 2006).

Marriage has been defined as a man and woman for the last couple of millenia so if they really are expecting it to change because of a couple of court rulings that incredibly naive. It's going to take time, and probably won't be widely accepted until the generation that's in it's 20's and teen's now are the majority of the adult population.

Plus, you're missing the positive of this whole situation. In the long run these bans are probably going to work in favor of the gay marriage advocates. It's a hell of a lot easier to get a state to change their constitution and accept this than it is to change the U.S. Constitution. These small victories for the opponents to gay rights in these ten states will take away the urgency behind the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

People before mentioned Loving v. Virginia. What they failed to mention is that that was basically the last enforced statute of that nature on the books anywhere. So it's not like the Supreme Court ruled and these statutes fell in all fifty states. The change had already happened across the country (starting about fifteen years earlier in California) and Loving was the final blow.

[Ian Boothby]

It's really oversimplfing the whole issue to say that the only opposition to gay marriage is religiously based. It's not. There are a lot of "regular" people, who are not overly religious, who while they have no problem with homosexuals are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. My parents are in their 50's and are in no way homophobic at all, yet they have a problem with gay marriage. They support civil unions and don't see anything wrong with that but still the idea of gay marriage doesn't sit well with them. I've asked them why and they can't even really articulate it. They don't know how they would vote on it yet (they live in Massachusetts so there won't be a vote here until 2006).

.

If I were to say I didn't think black folks should have the same rights as white folks but assured you I wasn't racist and that it just doesn't sit well with me, what would you say?

If they can't articulate a reason that gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else then until they have one stop preventing them from enjoying the same freedoms they're lucky enough to have.

"I'm not homophobic but..." is always followed by something just as silly as anything said after the phase "I'm not racist but..."

The "regular" people you're talking about are regular bigots. It's a regular thing to be, sadly.

[Yoda]

If I were to say I didn't think black folks should have the same rights as white folks but assured you I wasn't racist and that it just doesn't sit well with me, what would you say?

If they can't articulate a reason that gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else then until they have one stop preventing them from enjoying the same freedoms they're lucky enough to have.

"I'm not homophobic but..." is always followed by something just as silly as anything said after the phase "I'm not racist but..."

You can call everyone who is uncomfortable with gay marriage a "Homophobic, biblethumping religious zealot" all you want but you will never accomplish anything that way.

[Yoda]

The "regular" people you're talking about are regular bigots. It's a regular thing to be, sadly.

No they are not. 75% of the voting population of a state are not bigot's. And those are the margin's that your seeing in the states that passed the amendments. Maybe in your eyes that makes them bigot's but that's not an opinion shared by the majority of the people who are in support of gay marriage. It's not that simple. Nothing is that black and white.

Going to law school in Boston allowed me to witness this play out first hand. I was taught by one of the attorney's who worked on the gay marriage case last year. She wrote one of the brief's in support of gay marriage. Brillant woman. She and the others understand that this is going to take time to change people's perceptions. It's inevitable at this point and eventually will happen, but it's going to take time. All the major social changes do.

Dialogue and discussion with people is what's going to make it happen. Not calling anyone who doesn't share your view a bigot.

[stealthwise]

It's really oversimplfing the whole issue to say that the only opposition to gay marriage is religiously based. It's not.

The original moral basis against homosexuality for the majority of people opposed to the idea of gay marriage does have its roots in Western religion though.

Marriage has been defined as a man and woman for the last couple of millenia so if they really are expecting it to change because of a couple of court rulings that incredibly naive. It's going to take time, and probably won't be widely accepted until the generation that's in it's 20's and teen's now are the majority of the adult population.

That I agree with almost 100%.

[Yoda]

The original moral basis against homosexuality for the majority of people opposed to the idea

I know, but there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, yet are not religious at all. It's just something that's going to take time for people to accept. I think that your oversimplfying the issue by making it just about religion. If you look at the polls done (if you give any credance to polls) the younger the demographic, the more accepting of the idea. It's more about age.

Again, these state bans are going to turn out to be a good thing in the long run. It keeps it at the state level which is incredibly easier to change than an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and removes the urgency behind a gay marriage amendment to the Consitution. Both good things. They lost a battle with the 11 states, not the war.

In Massachusetts there was a lot of opposition to gay marriage after the initial decision by the SJC. They passed the first amendment in the legislature, which gave civil unions but not marriage. It's now expected that they will not pass it the second time needed for it to go to the voters. There was none of the expected backlash in the elections to the State Legislature this week, actually some who were opposed to gay marriage were voted out, and in general it's becoming a nonissue. Mainly because people realized that once last may came and the marriages started the sky didn't fall.

[Ian Boothby]

You can call everyone who is uncomfortable with gay marriage a "Homophobic, biblethumping religious zealot" all you want but you will never accomplish anything that way.


If you deny someone else the rights you have because you feel "uncomfortable" and as in the example Yoda brought up, can't give a good reason why then you should be ashamed.

It's 2004. Time for the U.S. to not deny gays folks rights because they feel icky about it.

[Ian Boothby]

No they are not. 75% of the voting population of a state are not bigot's. And those are the margin's that your seeing in the states that passed the amendments. Maybe in your eyes that makes them bigot's but that's not an opinion shared by the majority of the people who are in support of gay marriage. It's not that simple. Nothing is that black and white.

Going to law school in Boston allowed me to witness this play out first hand. I was taught by one of the attorney's who worked on the gay marriage case last year. She wrote one of the brief's in support of gay marriage. Brillant woman. She and the others understand that this is going to take time to change people's perceptions. It's inevitable at this point and eventually will happen, but it's going to take time. All the major social changes do.

Dialogue and discussion with people is what's going to make it happen. Not calling anyone who doesn't share your view a bigot.


But they are Blanche they are.

Okay that was a pretty gay reference. Let me try again.

If you base the way you vote on a prejudice and from what you've described, your folks might be swell but they are prejudiced towards gays (for reasons they can't put into words), then you're a bigot by the definition of the world. You're prejudiced and you act on that prejudice by voting to keep rights from people? Then sorry, quacks like a duck to me.

[Cam63]

But they are Blanche they are.

Okay that was a pretty gay reference. Let me try again.

If you base the way you vote on a prejudice and from what you've described, your folks might be swell but they are prejudiced towards gays (for reasons they can't put into words), then you're a bigot by the definition of the world. You're prejudiced and you act on that prejudice by voting to keep rights from people? Then sorry, quacks like a duck to me.

What Ian said.

[Spike-X]

75% of the voting population of a state are not bigot's.

The evidence at hand seems to suggest otherwise.

Maybe in your eyes that makes them bigot's but that's not an opinion shared by the majority of the people who are in support of gay marriage.

They don't consider themselves bigots, therefore they're not? I'm preeeeeetty sure it doesn't work like that. They might not like being called bigots, but hell, there's a simple solution to that. Put it this way - if I don't like being called fat, going on a diet will probably do a lot more to stop that than insisting to people that I'm actually quite slender, in fact. If people don't want to be thought of as bigots, all they have to do is stop trying to deny other people the same rights they take for granted. Simple.

It's not that simple. Nothing is that black and white.

But see, that's the thing. It is that simple. If somebody actively attempts to deny people equal rights, they are a bigot.

Going to law school in Boston...

Obviously didn't teach you the proper use of apostrophes (not apostrophe's, you'll note).

[matterconsumer]

The fundamental issue has still not been addressed that homosexuals are unable to in and of themselves procreate.

One doesn't have to reach for a Bible or revulse in a same sex penetration scenario to achieve the point.

When heterosexual couples are infertile (as had been mentioned in a prior post) we say this is an undesirable condition.

Some will use this as a justification for bigotry or discrimination.

It's only a statement of the obvious.

If being homosexual is practically equivalent and or more desirable than being hetereosexual then this becomes problematic should the majority population become homosexual. The population dies over time.

One has to say it's ok to be homosexual but be against an overbalance.
Ironically one has to hope that homosexuality remains a minority.

===========
Marriage doesn't mean just legal rights and the like. One of the things that typically goes with marriage is having a family. Traditionally that's the way it's done. Get married (supposedly for life) and have children.

As an observation, there are many who are far more opposed to homosexuals having children artificially and through adoption than homosexuals simply living together. They equate marriage and family together.

[Pixies Chick]

There's nothing to numbers that will turn wrong into right. Bill Clinton told John Kerry to support the gay marriage bans in a few states to up his numbers, but to his credit, he refused. I think that indicates a lot of integrity.

So the states banned gays and voted for Bush. Time for the people in those states who disagree with that to exodus.

The population shift to the Red States is what put Bush in the White House. If you're liberal and/or gay, the Red States will take your economic contributions, then in return, give you bupkis AND disrespect. Get the hell away.

IOW -- It's been nice to be in Minnesota the last few days. We're consoling each other very well. In addition, if my stepdaughter or nephews turn out to be gay, I don't have to worry that they'll leave here because of bigotry.

[Charles RB]

The fundamental issue has still not been addressed that homosexuals are unable to in and of themselves procreate.

Except now we have sperm banks and ways to fertilise women outside of sex, so that's not really an issue.

[The Xenos]

What bugs me is that marrage is an institution of the church (or temple or morsque). People are bitching (rightfully) about Bush trying to define marrage in the constituion. He has no buisness brining religion and marrage into the constitution. Yes, separation of chuch and state. At the same time is anyone realizing that the gay marrage argument is brining the state into the church to begin with?

I think the stupid mistake gay rights activists made was calling it marrage. I cannot belive they are so blinded by their own causeheadedness and their own goals that they can't see the can of worms using the word 'marrage' opens. Had they emphasized they were fighting for equal rights and not demanding 'marrage' from the state, then I think they would have a much easier time. I am dumbfounded that they are so arrogant in insisting on that term, because that's just gonna piss people off.

You're here, you're queer, but dammit you don't have to be so damn arrogant about it. You're doing nothing but scaring people to vote for Bush. Plus calling them stupid or bigots isn't gonna help your cause. Maybe if you tried to reason with them and.. hey.. maybe even try to understand them and try to relate your cause to them, you might get somewhere.

I am all for comitted gay couples having the same legal and finantial rights as straight couples. Just don't call it marrage. It's be a whole lot easier to call it a civil union. Personally, I got this radical idea tha