Same Sex Marriages

[bio-chem]

point taken crazy, because this is not in a vocal face to face its much easier to have misunderstandings of ones meanings. in my defence your words were directed to me so i would be the one to take it personally. so at 6 you were touching your "privates" for personal pleasure. isnt that masturbation? im trying to clarify here.

 

[crazy_enough]

point taken crazy, because this is not in a vocal face to face its much easier to have misunderstandings of ones meanings. in my defence your words were directed to me so i would be the one to take it personally. so at 6 you were touching your "privates" for personal pleasure. isnt that masturbation? im trying to clarify here.

No thats fine, my words were directed at you, just not meant the way u interpreted them..No biggy!

And yes, I am certain that it is concidered masturbation to an extent, but more so self discovery...

 

[kbm8795]

that maybe the interpretation of that one lawyer, but like i said the government of the u.s. has passed laws regulating marriage in the past despite arguements of 1st amenment rights. these laws were also later upheld in the u.s. supreme court.

The federal government has generally only passed laws adding benefits for married couples. An exception might be the policy on polygamy, which was imposed upon the Mormon religion as a condition for statehood. In that case, the federal government used troops to forcibly break up families, something which conservatives seem to advocate in same-sex marriage situations today.
However, the government had a compelling interest in limiting polygamy, namely the purpose of state statutes to provide for an orderly transfer of property, the distribution of partnership rights in a court of law, and a clearly defined line of succession for funeral arrangements, health benefits and child custody.

Supreme Court rulings involving the concepts of defining marriage directly relate to state cases, usually involving state attempts to regulate marriage by requiring dowries, ban interracial relationships, or prevent extended families from living together. In all of these cases, the Court emphasized how the individual right to free association especially in matters of intimacy precludes state interference unless the state has a compelling reason. Merely the act of disapproval from some other citizens has never been considered a compelling reason for denying individual rights to choose a partner for marriage, meaning the "morality" argument has no bearing. It is, for example, beyond the state's interest to require a wife to testify against her husband in court - why is that? Because marriage has been viewed as a significant buffer between the power of the state and the rights of individual people.

So, sorry - simple disapproval because of someone else's religious or apparent moral beliefs are not compelling enough to prove actual and material damage to the state. That is one of the reasons why religious "conservatives" want a constitutional amendment - so they can establish a precedent whereby the government can claim a right to interfere in any relationship. This means, for example, if bio-chem's "morality" is against a partner having an affair, the government could step in and dissolve the marriage based on nothing more than the prevailing "moral" opinion of the neighbors.

The right to bear arms, as any conservative will tell you, is about being able to protect their family and their nation from tyranny. Certainly you don't think that forcibly nullifying the legal marriages of American citizens based on nothing more than the rest of the town's "vote" of morality is going to be accepted by those same-sex couples as a friendly gesture.

Your contention that the minorities have hidden behind the First Amendment in order to push their agenda for decades is curious, especially since religious conservatives, who are a minority of the population constantly claim their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech are threatened every time a law is passed protected a gay American from verbal and/or physical abuse. Their cries aren't surprising, because if you look at the groups who receive the most exemptions from discrimination laws, you'll see that they are religious organizations. However, they aren't happy with simply that exemption for themselves - they expect everyone else to do the same thing. Seems to me when you advocate wiping out discrimination protections for religious groups, you might have some moral reason to say that gay Americans deserve no "special rights" too. After all, we already KNOW that religious denominational affiliation isn't a genetic trait - no one is born a Methodist. Since it's obviously a chosen lifestyle, it is interesting how they are the originaters of the concept of "special rights" for themselves.

 

[bio-chem]

WoW good rhetoric. you didnt say anything. no one is saying go in and take the children from their homes. honestly when has anyone on this thread said that? when has any leader of the U.S. government said that? stop your bs scare tactics and stick to the facts, your turning yourself into a joke. and all this conservative blah you keep yelping about. it was a liberal who signed the deffence of marriage act. this is well beyond conservative and liberal, as conservatives and liberals alike are voting in favor of these amendments . the same reasons you gave for the government stepping in on polygamy apply to homosexual marriage. come back when you have something worth talking about. or better yet let crazy answer for you she comes up with thoughts that are worth the effort.

 

[bandaidwoman]

if one state allows gay marriage then it would be forcing its laws on another state to also recognize this marriage.

patently false, see this article written by a lawyer http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001873504_sunmarriage07.html

Marriages, in other words, have not been treated as automatically recognized by other states. Its opponents fear that same-sex marriages will have to be respected all over the country. That is completely unrealistic. In fact, nationwide enforceability is less real now than ever, as a result of the most recent federal statute on the subject. Passed in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) specifies that no state has to recognize a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. Dozens of state legislatures have leaped on the bandwagon, taking advantage of this invitation by providing, with state DOMAs, that their states will not recognize same-sex marriages from places like Massachusetts.

But for some opponents of same-sex marriage, even the federal and state DOMAs are not reassurance enough. Some of these people worry that the federal law may someday be invalidated as inconsistent with the full faith and credit clause. That's why they seek an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But the DOMA is probably not unconstitutional. (Granted, that is not a very high recommendation.) Even if constitutional, it is a silly law, motivated by nothing but political grandstanding. That's not a defect that can be cured by enacting it into the Constitution. President Bush would be well advised to shelve his election-year proposals for a constitutional amendment.

 

[kbm8795]

WoW good rhetoric. you didnt say anything. no one is saying go in and take the children from their homes. honestly when has anyone on this thread said that? when has any leader of the U.S. government said that? stop your bs scare tactics and stick to the facts, your turning yourself into a joke. and all this conservative blah you keep yelping about. it was a liberal who signed the deffence of marriage act. this is well beyond conservative and liberal, as conservatives and liberals alike are voting in favor of these amendments . the same reasons you gave for the government stepping in on polygamy apply to homosexual marriage. come back when you have something worth talking about. or better yet let crazy answer for you she comes up with thoughts that are worth the effort.

I suggest you do a little reading before you start typing ideological nonsense.
Since you contend that the "same reasons you gave for the government stepping in on polygamy (in a territory, not a state) apply to homosexual marriage", one might note that not only are the two types of relationships different but that the government was able to provide a compelling and practical reason for stopping the practice of polygamy. There is no such reason in the case of same-sex marriages. However, when the government did intervene in Utah, people were killed, their homes and families broken up and members scattered.

So who are you kidding in contending that no one advocates going in and breaking up someone's home? That is precisely the intent of a constitutional amendment - to end the marriages in the only state in which they are legal. Since several thousand same-sex couples are legally wed there, are you claiming that conservatives will advocate a morality where "practicing homosexuals" live in sin and continue to raise children without the protections of marriage? Hardly. In fact, if you look at the legislation the Republicans are sponsoring in states that have passed (or in the process of passing) constitutional amendments, the followup immediately addresses attempts at bans of adoption and foster parenting. But these proposals don't simply end at that. . .in many of those states, religious fanatics used stealth tactics to limit or refuse to recognize the existence of anyone living together without being married while banning those people from being able to marry at the same time.

In Alabama and Arkansas, proposals to ban all books that even mention gays have been introduced in state legislatures. In North Carolina, a woman was forced to leave her job at a county sheriff's office because the sheriff said that she cohabitated with a man and it set a bad example by not following an archaic North Carolina anti-cohabitation law. In Virginia, the courts refuse to recognize the parental rights of one partner in an estranged lesbian couple, even though the relationship was legal in Vermont and the Vermont courts ordered visitation rights. Of course, Virginia has banned even basic contracts between members of the same sex, including powers of attorney....but then, the state has also just made wearing lowcut jeans a criminal offense, too - all proposals written and sponsored by Republicans. In Louisiana, the state Supreme Court (yes, that same branch of "activist" judges) had to step in to prevent the erosion of personal contractual rights from their own constitutional amendment. In Georgia, legislators used the passage of the constitutional amendment to pass a law restricting Atlanta's right to protect same-sex couples from discrimination in private club memberships based on the city's own anti-discrimination ordinance. In Ohio, a simple domestic partnership registry in a Cleveland suburb, which voters approved in order to allow unmarried households a means to prove their relationship for private and employer health insurance coverage is being challenged by the same conservative religious legal organization who claims that the "people" should decide what rights gay Americans have in this country. In Michigan, conservatives are using passage of their constitutional amendment to challenge the provision of health benefits to same-sex partners in the Ann Arbor school system. State employees, who had originally negotiated these same benefits in their contract with Michigan, have had them abrogated.

When speaking in support of Virginia's constitutonal amendment, one Republican representative declared that it was acceptable to discriminate against gay and lesbian citizens.

And this attitude isn't limited to just basic protections, including the ones already enacted by voters. In Kentucky, a man was accused of murdering a gay man by luring him to a hotel room, killing him and then packing him in a suitcase and tossing the body into a lake. The charge was reduced to manslaughter because the poor guy was taken by "gay panic."

In only ONE state where constitutional amendments were passed was any attempt made by Republicans to address the issues involving personal property, hospital visitation rights and funeral arrangements which these couples brought up as reasons for seeking marital status to begin with. That proposal was defeated because other conservative legislators contended that "single" citizen provisions are sufficient to cover families who aren't (and now can't) be married. In every other state, Republican legislators insist that these couples and their children must be considered legally "single."

President Bush has increased taxpayer-supported spending on both abstinence programs and promotion of marriage, especially through religious organizations that his Administration recognizes as "truly" christian. This, of course, means funding evangelical groups and ignoring other churches with more accepting programs. Since the President has come out in favor of a federal constitutional amendment, the marriage promotion programs obviously do not provide services for those couples the Administration pretends cannot be recognized as existing on any level.

In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, the latest poll indicates that 52% of the people in the state don't even want to see a constitutional amendment placed on any ballot - another reason why conservatives are demanding a national constitutional amendment as the only means of terminating those marriages in Massachusetts, since it appears the voters in that state are likely NOT to vote to ban it.

So this is neither an issue involving the will of the people or a realistic backlash against "activist" judges who dared to interpret a state constitution wording of "ALL" to mean. . .gosh. . .ALL. It is nothing more than a campaign of scapegoating and persecution based on some fluid sense of morality, which, by all measures, will do nothing to protect marriage from a rampant divorce rate, heterosexual irresponsibility, and a growing domestic violence rate. That would really involve promoting personal responsibility and morality.

 

[Rich46yo]

What does it mean then?? When someone tells me that they "accept" my lifestyle but that I should not exercise my fondamental right to love, share a life with and marry my same sex partner, I sure hear the "anti gay" song in the back of my mind!

It means, "I aint anti-Gay but believe marriage is an institution between man and woman"!

Any questions?..............Uncle Rich

 

[Minotaur]

It means, "I aint anti-Gay but believe marriage is an institution between man and woman"!

Any questions?..............Uncle Rich

So should that mean that the two people who have built a life together should not have the legal protections afforded to 'married' heterosexuals? Should that mean that there are no automatic rights of inheritance between a homosexual couple of 20, 30, 40, 50 years? That the only surviving great nephew of the deceased, who hasn't been seen in 30 years, should inherit part of the estate that the homosexual couple spent a lifetime building? This is what will happen. Wills and powers-of-attorney (which cease upon death) are often contested/contestible in court. Automatic inheritance via marriage is incontestible.

Want to give us civil unions? OK, fine. But those civil unions better include all 1,000+ implicit and explicit rights and protections afforded by a state marriage license, and to be fair, those civil unions better be recognized by the Federal government.

Gee, that's a civil marriage, isn't it? Now, is that so bad?

 

[Minotaur]

In Alabama and Arkansas, proposals to ban all books that even mention gays have been introduced in state legislatures. In North Carolina, a woman was forced to leave her job at a county sheriff's office because the sheriff said that she cohabitated with a man and it set a bad example by not following an archaic North Carolina anti-cohabitation law. In Virginia, the courts refuse to recognize the parental rights of one partner in an estranged lesbian couple, even though the relationship was legal in Vermont and the Vermont courts ordered visitation rights. Of course, Virginia has banned even basic contracts between members of the same sex, including powers of attorney....but then, the state has also just made wearing lowcut jeans a criminal offense, too - all proposals written and sponsored by Republicans. In Louisiana, the state Supreme Court (yes, that same branch of "activist" judges) had to step in to prevent the erosion of personal contractual rights from their own constitutional amendment. In Georgia, legislators used the passage of the constitutional amendment to pass a law restricting Atlanta's right to protect same-sex couples from discrimination in private club memberships based on the city's own anti-discrimination ordinance.

We should have let them secede. Dumbass Lincoln (who was also probably bi or gay, according to an article in The Advocate), I'll bet he's spinning in his grave.

 

[Rich46yo]

So should that mean that the two people who have built a life together should not have the legal protections afforded to 'married' heterosexuals? Should that mean that there are no automatic rights of inheritance between a homosexual couple of 20, 30, 40, 50 years? That the only surviving great nephew of the deceased, who hasn't been seen in 30 years, should inherit part of the estate that the homosexual couple spent a lifetime building? This is what will happen. Wills and powers-of-attorney (which cease upon death) are often contested/contestible in court. Automatic inheritance via marriage is incontestible.

Want to give us civil unions? OK, fine. But those civil unions better include all 1,000+ implicit and explicit rights and protections afforded by a state marriage license, and to be fair, those civil unions better be recognized by the Federal government.

Gee, that's a civil marriage, isn't it? Now, is that so bad?

Maybe you should look ahead to the future then and make out wills without relying on a marriage to do so. And any will is contestable. It doesn't mean you'll win anything but you can contest it.

Funny aint it? Even with all the morale posturing, and lawyer-ese, it all comes down to one thing............MONEY!

The social fabric of this nation has been devastated by all this fucking liberalism and until we roll back to the nuclear family, that is, families where a man and woman uphold their oaths to each other and raise children responsibly. Until then! We will be truly fucked!

And while I am open minded with gays, even friendly with them, the thought of two gays raising a child together makes me want to vomit. That! Aint normal! Oh don't get your strap-ons or your leather chaps in an uproar, I don't feel all to forgiving towards abortion either. Or a whole host of other liberal diseases.

But before you freak out understand that I'm against a amendment to the US Constitution on it also. I don't believe the Constitution should be fucked with over such things. If I can say it shouldn't be fucked with over gun rights then I'll have to bite the bullet and also say it shouldn't be fucked with over gay marriage. In Fact, The US Constitution shouldn't be fucked with period! Nor should the rights of individual states.

And if a state should pass such a thing, then it should stand. Then let the Supreme Court and all the fucking sheisters fight over it. Im against it, but I could live with it if it won on majority rule.

But theres no way your going to get a majority. Oh maybe in California or a few of these other Liberal states. Now this is just my opinion, but I think your going to see the US continue to roll back to a conservative mindset. I think your going to find the Democratic party starting to abandon you. And I think your going to live the rest of your lives without winning on this issue.

I'm not gloating here. I'm just pointing out the trends I see forming. In the last 20+ years Ive seen a wonderful reversal in Police/Gay community relations and I'm proud to say Ive been a part of it. But marriage? And child rearing? No way!........................Uncle Rich

 

[crazy_enough]

Maybe you should look ahead to the future then and make out wills without relying on a marriage to do so. And any will is contestable. It doesn't mean you'll win anything but you can contest it.

Funny aint it? Even with all the morale posturing, and lawyer-ese, it all comes down to one thing............MONEY!

The social fabric of this nation has been devastated by all this fucking liberalism and until we roll back to the nuclear family, that is, families where a man and woman uphold their oaths to each other and raise children responsibly. Until then! We will be truly fucked!

And while I am open minded with gays, even friendly with them, the thought of two gays raising a child together makes me want to vomit. That! Aint normal! Oh don't get your strap-ons or your leather chaps in an uproar, I don't feel all to forgiving towards abortion either. Or a whole host of other liberal diseases.

But before you freak out understand that I'm against a amendment to the US Constitution on it also. I don't believe the Constitution should be fucked with over such things. If I can say it shouldn't be fucked with over gun rights then I'll have to bite the bullet and also say it shouldn't be fucked with over gay marriage. In Fact, The US Constitution shouldn't be fucked with period! Nor should the rights of individual states.

And if a state should pass such a thing, then it should stand. Then let the Supreme Court and all the fucking sheisters fight over it. Im against it, but I could live with it if it won on majority rule.

But theres no way your going to get a majority. Oh maybe in California or a few of these other Liberal states. Now this is just my opinion, but I think your going to see the US continue to roll back to a conservative mindset. I think your going to find the Democratic party starting to abandon you. And I think your going to live the rest of your lives without winning on this issue.

I'm not gloating here. I'm just pointing out the trends I see forming. In the last 20+ years Ive seen a wonderful reversal in Police/Gay community relations and I'm proud to say Ive been a part of it. But marriage? And child rearing? No way!........................Uncle Rich

How can u say that u have witnessed a wonderful reversal in police/gay community relations and be proud to be a part ot it? What has changed? Oh yeah, police forces and officers no longer kick the crap out of homosexuals simply because, they are, well, homosexual! WOW, heck of a bonus to finaly be treated like human beings!

I am glad that u are not gloating, beacause theres definitely nothing to gloat about with this issue. U still have strong prejudice about gay families and unions... It scares me to think that people such as police officers or any others in "positions of power and protection" can be so biased! U are open minded with gays, even friendly with "them"..Well, geewhiz, someone give this guy a medal of honour for going as far as being friendly with homosexuals!! Its af if gays are a form of alien or even worst, bearer of a contagious illness and people pat themselves on the back for not being openly hateful! Sorry to sound so pissed and bitter but PMS + M1T= lethal mix!lol

I can assure you that my wife and I are far better parents to our wonderful children than many heterosexual couples! Were not perfect, parenting is an ongoing learning process, but the love and care that we give to these kids comes form the same place as anyone else: the heart!

 

[Minotaur]

Maybe you should look ahead to the future then and make out wills without relying on a marriage to do so. And any will is contestable. It doesn't mean you'll win anything but you can contest it.

The point you're missing is that the will I make to pass everything to my surviving partner can be contested by my family if they so desire. My family can even get a restraining order to keep him from visiting my grave. My family can keep him from visiting or caring for me in the hospital. My family can take everything away from him, even with a will.

There is no threat to the nuclear family or traditional families from homosexual marriages. Straight men and women are not going to stop falling in love and getting married because two men or two women can also get married. That's homophobic propaganda and nothing more. There is no threat to traditional marriage and families from homosexual marriage. The problem is that conservatives want to retain control over the last group that it's still OK to persecute, and over a group they see as deviants. It's nothing more than that, and there is no way you can refute that.

 

[kbm8795]

Maybe you should look ahead to the future then and make out wills without relying on a marriage to do so. And any will is contestable. It doesn't mean you'll win anything but you can contest it.

Funny aint it? Even with all the morale posturing, and lawyer-ese, it all comes down to one thing............MONEY!

The social fabric of this nation has been devastated by all this fucking liberalism and until we roll back to the nuclear family, that is, families where a man and woman uphold their oaths to each other and raise children responsibly. Until then! We will be truly fucked!

And while I am open minded with gays, even friendly with them, the thought of two gays raising a child together makes me want to vomit. That! Aint normal! Oh don't get your strap-ons or your leather chaps in an uproar, I don't feel all to forgiving towards abortion either. Or a whole host of other liberal diseases.

But before you freak out understand that I'm against a amendment to the US Constitution on it also. I don't believe the Constitution should be fucked with over such things. If I can say it shouldn't be fucked with over gun rights then I'll have to bite the bullet and also say it shouldn't be fucked with over gay marriage. In Fact, The US Constitution shouldn't be fucked with period! Nor should the rights of individual states.

And if a state should pass such a thing, then it should stand. Then let the Supreme Court and all the fucking sheisters fight over it. Im against it, but I could live with it if it won on majority rule.

But theres no way your going to get a majority. Oh maybe in California or a few of these other Liberal states. Now this is just my opinion, but I think your going to see the US continue to roll back to a conservative mindset. I think your going to find the Democratic party starting to abandon you. And I think your going to live the rest of your lives without winning on this issue.

I'm not gloating here. I'm just pointing out the trends I see forming. In the last 20+ years Ive seen a wonderful reversal in Police/Gay community relations and I'm proud to say Ive been a part of it. But marriage? And child rearing? No way!........................Uncle Rich

If it was the case that marriage statutes didn't provide greater protection from inheritance challenges, there would be no need for their existence in the first place - meaning everyone would be on the same level playing field. So let's not pretend that families who are designated as "single" simply fork over $15 to an attorney and magically construct all the same kinds of protections and benefits that marriage statutes provide.

And who the fuq cares what you think of two men raising a child? This society has long allowed both single family members (including gays), grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings and responsible adoptive parents to raise children, especially in the absence of responsible mother-father parenting. I've seen no study that indicates that a child raised by a grandmother becomes confused about sexuality - this is nothing more than another smokescreen argument.

Your constant blaming of every social ill on "liberals" is exactly the attitude Republicans count on as they pass all kinds of other restrictive legislation, and you can bet you won't utter a peep about that beyond shallow claims that this was really "just" about marriage - not health insurance or immigration rights or anything else. Many of those gay couples who have adopted children have provided homes for kids that NO heterosexual wanted because it would be just too much work. . .so while we ban abortion, perhaps someone needs to step up to the plate and actually do something real about providing these pretty images of mother-father loving homes that don't seem to exist beyond old 1950's separate bed television programming.

If you cared so much about the nuclear family, your ass would be screaming to ban divorce, intervene and dissolve marriages where adultery has occurred, dissolve marriages where domestic violence has happened, and prevent convicted murderers from marriage and having children. I haven't seen any Republican take any moral responsibility for handling these "social" ills beyond claiming that the liberals created them. But, since so many Republicans have themselves violated their vows and disrupted the nuclear family by their own behavior, we aren't apt to see any personal responsibility beyond a bunch of rhetoric aimed at persecuting a minority or concern about wearing lowcut jeans in public.

And if you think being anti-gay marriage isn't being anti-gay, you need to work on your thought processes. As long as people in committed relationships are designated as "legally single" any third cousin can exhume a body from the grave, prohibit mutual health decisions from same-sex partners or steal property. And you are apt to see many of those nice community building policies between police and gays soured when law enforcement is called upon to enforce the "conservative' policies being enacted by The Party. Go ahead an knock on the door of a legally married couple and tell them that the thought of them living together and raising a child makes you want to vomit and that the rest of the town has passed an amendment dissolving their marriage. You are likely to get a chance to see what possession of gun rights are really all about.

 

[Minotaur]

www.davidcorn.com/
Bush and Gay Marriage: Figuring Out His Orientation

A week or so ago, I pointed to a New York Times article that totally caught George W. Bush in a lie--or an act of profound ignorance. During a press conference, he was asked about gay adoption, and he noted that "studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman." Guess what? There are no such studies, according to the Times. None at all. And I expressed hope that the White House press corps would follow up and ask mouthpiece Scott McClellan what Bush had in mind when he referred to those nonexistent studies. Was Bush confused? Was he making stuff up? Or did he know something the Times did not? After all, if the president is peddling false assertions regarding a hot-button issue, isn't that newsworthy?

Apparently not. My assistant, Alexa Steinberg, has been keeping track of the press briefings since the Times published that article, and no reporter has asked McClellan for an explanation. Not even anyone from the Times. (Where's my old high school associate David Sanger?) File this episode in the How-He-Gets-Away-With-It drawer.

In a related story -- as they say on television -- let me note that I am still puzzling over a piece of Bush's State of the Union speech. When he appeared before Congress last week, Bush reiterated his call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Actually, he didn't use the G-word. Nor did he say anything about a ban. He said, "I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." (Who's against the institution of marriage--except the bitter divorced?) But everyone knew what Bush meant. And he maintained that this measure was necessary for "the good of families, children and society." In other words, gay marriage threatens kids. How so? Bush didn't explain. But this was reminiscent of the old antigay line: they're coming for the children!.

Yet even though there's this supposed danger to children lurking out there, Bush really doesn't worry about it too much. Days before he gave this speech, Bush said he was not going to push hard for the amendment because it was clearly an uphill battle in the Senate. Then how big a threat can this be? Notice he didn't use the word "crisis" in reference to gay marriage. Bush appears perfectly willing to put off fighting for a measure that's supposedly for the "good" of children? Imagine if he did the same with abortion -- a practice he condemns and one that his supporters compare to the slaughter of innocents. Oh, I forgot, that's exactly what Bush has done. He believes abortion is so wrong that it ought to be criminalized, yet he would not talk about it explicitly in his State of the Union speech. And he has not campaigned directly for measures (or court decisions) that end all abortions.

But back to Bush's uneven war against gay coupling: his stance on this matter becomes more curious when one takes into account that before the election he said gays and lesbians should be allowed to form civil unions in states that decide that's okay. Presumably, some of these couples will have kids. For instance, that's what happens in Vermont (where PBS cartoon-character Buster recently visited two farms with double-mommy families and outraged Bush's new education secretary Margaret Spelling, who denounced the "lifestyle" of these maple syrup gatherers). Is Bush not worried about the "good" of children being reared in civil-union households?

Bush seems to believe that civil unions don't threaten children but gay marriage does. So gay marriage must be stopped for the "good" of children but civil unions can occur. Explain that. Maybe Bush thinks it's fine for states to issue civil union certificates as long as they do not allow gay and lesbian parenting. But it's no wonder Bush rarely speaks at length on this subject.

By the way, do Bush and Spelling consider the impact of their antigay pronouncements upon the thousands of children already living in families led by gay or lesbian couples? For their "good," should these kids be relocated into hetero households? Oh, don't be silly and exaggerate the president's position, some of you might say. But if we care about the children so much, perhaps we ought to consider doing so for their own "good." After all, Bush has sent the signal that gay-led families are not "good" for them or society. And how "good" can it be for the children in these homes to hear the president denigrate their families?

 

[Rich46yo]

How can u say that u have witnessed a wonderful reversal in police/gay community relations and be proud to be a part ot it? What has changed? Oh yeah, police forces and officers no longer kick the crap out of homosexuals simply because, they are, well, homosexual! WOW, heck of a bonus to finaly be treated like human beings!

Crazy, no insult intended. But you are talking out your ass. You dont know the first thing of being a Police officer, nor do I suspect you are old enough to have witnessed the transformation of relations between the Police and the gay community. You are speaking strictly from the youthful,ignorant, shitty little anti-police attitude that goes hand in hand with Liberalism. Ive been some type of Policeman longer then you have been on this earth so spare me the condescension and the mindless shrieking.

It might surprise you but in 20+ years as a cop Ive never seen any officer beat the shit out of someone just cause they were gay. Ive seen or heard some ignorant statements made years ago, seen some poor service given to gays. But Ive never seen any officer beat the shit out of someone "just cause they are gay". I think you must be confused with the Police Officers who've had to use force against gay offenders in self defense right? Ive done that several times, and each time Ive won. Sorry, but if its a choice between winning a fight and losing one. I'm going to pick winning. And I don't give a shit what any liberal thinks.

So spare me your shitty little anti-cop attitude sister. They day you spend 20+ years risking your ass for others, including gays, is the day you can talk down to me or insult my profession. You don't know shit kid!

I am glad that u are not gloating, beacause theres definitely nothing to gloat about with this issue. U still have strong prejudice about gay families and unions... It scares me to think that people such as police officers or any others in "positions of power and protection" can be so biased! U are open minded with gays, even friendly with "them"..Well, geewhiz, someone give this guy a medal of honour for going as far as being friendly with homosexuals!! Its af if gays are a form of alien or even worst, bearer of a contagious illness and people pat themselves on the back for not being openly hateful! Sorry to sound so pissed and bitter but PMS + M1T= lethal mix!lol

I can assure you that my wife and I are far better parents to our wonderful children than many heterosexual couples! Were not perfect, parenting is an ongoing learning process, but the love and care that we give to these kids comes form the same place as anyone else: the heart!

I got a right to say any damn thing I think! Just like you do. And I think "you and your wife"? raising a child is about as bizarre an arrangement as Ive ever heard of. Hows that opinion grab you? Be that as it may, even with your little Lucy and Desi act, if you were an American you'd deserve equal protection under the law. Everyone does! BTW why is a fucking canuck even giving an opinion about American laws ?

Funny word "biased" isn't it? I have found, while living much more life then you, that its often the user of it that has the most of it. Your right! I do have strong feelings about "gay families". Apparently you do too! But I'm the one thats biased right? I guess it never occurred to you my statement about "normalcy" was contexted in the flow of the thread did it? For the record I couldn't give a shit who you,Minotaur, or anyone else is fucking. It aint my business!

And Ive had to bury to many partners to give a shit if your a woman, or pms'ing, or mit'ing. And none of those men or woman killed LOD ever beat the shit out of an innocent person for no reason either. Whatever their sexual preference. I think you got a little growing up to do girl.

............"your favorite uncle"..... .......Uncle Rich

 

[Rich46yo]

KBM, your babbling again. Im sorry but I just cant get thru your post. Im starting to think that, bottom line, is that.....your just an asshole!

Funny thing is that I consider myself to be fairly progressive toward gay rights. Its very unfortunate that the gay community has become a one issue community. Im sorry but its going to cost you. And its going to set you back. Crazy if you want to go back to civil discourse I'll continue with this. If not? Then Im gone. BTW where is Canada in all this?...................Uncle Rich

 

[John H.]

John H, I am not here to argue but to simply state a point. You say that homosexuality is natural but let me point out a few basic facts of life. The basis of nature is reproduction, or to pass your genetics successfully on to another generation to ensure survival, and this is not possible with homosexuality. If we look at the simple laws that govern the natural world we see that homosexuality is not meant to be a natural occurence. The theory of Social Darwinism states that the species who posesses the genetic potential to live in a certain environment and successfully pass their genes onto their offspring and so on to other generations is what governs life. While homosexuality may exist in the human species, who also have sex for pleasure as well as reproduction, it is not a natural occurence. You could call it a "synthetic" occurence within the natural cycle of life. Homosexuals do not have the capability to pass their genetics on to future offspring unless they do so heterosexually, which further proves that it is not a natural process. If homosexuality existed in a species that has sex purely for reproduction, then the homosexuals would quickly die off. You can say that God and Christ never said anything about homosexuality but the simple laws of life and reproduction show you that homosexuality is in no way natural. It is impossible for the haploid cells(sex cells) of two men or two women to fuse and form a zygote, which is what grows into a mature organism, and this by itself shows that homosexuality is not natural. I am not expressing any opinions on this, im simply stating a scientific view on what you call natural.

Hi GococksDJS,

Ok, I found this - I meant to reply sooner but ran out of time and I see I am WAY behind (this is on page 24?) and I think we are up to page 26 or 27....

Homosexuality - and BiSexuality and Heterosexuality and Asexuality - ARE NATURAL. Definitely! And they do exist in Nature and the Natural World of which humans are a part whether you, I, or anyone else like it or not, agree with it or not... And always have.

Reproduction? Hell I do NOT think there ever is a problem with that in this world. Look around you! Look to history. Remember, not everything that is conceived is meant to be and never will be. Look at an Oak tree for example, hell they produce millions of acorns but only a few compared to all that "sex" come to life... The same applies to all things in life. The variations in Sexuality ARE one facet of the subject to allow only a certain amount of reproducing to be "successful".

Homosexual and BiSexual people CAN reproduce if they connect with someone of the opposite sex that is willing and able. The fact that a person IS Homosexual or BiSexual for example does not proclude them from reproducing. They each have to be basically healthy to reproduce.

I hate to disappoint you but Sex for pleasure IS COMPLETELY NATURAL as well. It is one of the aspects - the totality - of Sex.

There is one book that comes to mind immediately - BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press) that discusses Homosexuality and BiSexuality in the animal kingdom. Take courses in Biology and Botany and you will see it is prevalent everywhere and everyplace in life.

Read this too: CHANGING ONES: THIRD AND FOURTH GENDERS IN NATIVE NORTH AMERICA, by Will Roscoe (discusses variations in Sexuality in Native North America).

Have you seen or read this book: FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press) (discusses Male Sexuality in Florence, Italy, around 1400-1500 and has damn good source information listed. Nearly 50% of ALL men - that were CAUGHT - were involved Sexually with each other - why is that? How is it that so many - that were CAUGHT (that we KNOW OF) - were so involved and found it so right? And this is just one town in one country. I am sure if original source material survived we would find this also true in other areas of the world.

Take Care, John H.

 

[John H.]

Ok, I just got to this point after going through pages 24 thru 26 - there is NO way I am going to "catch up" - I do not have that much time. (I am sure to the delight of some here...)

My in-box was full and I had to try to catch up or fall further behind. No I can hopefully move to new posts...

Take Care, John H.

 

[kbm8795]

KBM, your babbling again. Im sorry but I just cant get thru your post. Im starting to think that, bottom line, is that.....your just an asshole!

Funny thing is that I consider myself to be fairly progressive toward gay rights. Its very unfortunate that the gay community has become a one issue community. Im sorry but its going to cost you. And its going to set you back. Crazy if you want to go back to civil discourse I'll continue with this. If not? Then Im gone. BTW where is Canada in all this?...................Uncle Rich

As usual, Rich takes the typically conservative highroad of personalized namecalling as a legit style of "civil discourse." It not only shows his ignorance of the gay community he claims to have such good relations with, but an innate sense of prejudice unbecoming any police officer employed by the population. The gay community has never made this a "one issue" - though conservatives have done their best to frame it as thus - and then using it to pass legislation about other things and block legislative protections for immigration and employment.

So, Rich - since you tossed out the "back to civil discourse (translation = agree with you even if you don't know crap about the words that fall out of your fingertips) and I'll continue with this. If not? Then I'm gone". . .I think you've already made that decision. I'll just make it a little more clear. . .

Be gone before someone drops a house on you, too.

 

[crazy_enough]

I got a right to say any damn thing I think! Just like you do. And I think "you and your wife"? raising a child is about as bizarre an arrangement as Ive ever heard of. Hows that opinion grab you? Be that as it may, even with your little Lucy and Desi act, if you were an American you'd deserve equal protection under the law. Everyone does! BTW why is a fucking canuck even giving an opinion about American laws ?

Funny word "biased" isn't it? I have found, while living much more life then you, that its often the user of it that has the most of it. Your right! I do have strong feelings about "gay families". Apparently you do too! But I'm the one thats biased right? I guess it never occurred to you my statement about "normalcy" was contexted in the flow of the thread did it? For the record I couldn't give a shit who you,Minotaur, or anyone else is fucking. It aint my business!

And Ive had to bury to many partners to give a shit if your a woman, or pms'ing, or mit'ing. And none of those men or woman killed LOD ever beat the shit out of an innocent person for no reason either. Whatever their sexual preference. I think you got a little growing up to do girl.

............"your favorite uncle"..... .......Uncle Rich

So lemme get this straight, because you have been on this earth longer than I have, u automaitcaly have more knowledge, intelligence and reason, even about something that your are obviously quite clueless about(gay lifestyle/family/union)?! Nice thinking!
I never said that u or any of your partners have commited crimes against homosexuals, but to see you be so defensive outta fucking nowhere makes me wonder! I dont blame u one bit for defendig yourself physicaly, whether ur opponent, is gay, black, white or has 26 eyes! Nor did I say anything about American law, (altho, as u so beautifuly put it "I got the right to say any damn thing I think") but people all over the world are just that, people, and they all deserve the same respect and proper treatment!
I do not have an anti-police attitude, not one ounce of it! Now ure the one talking outta ur ass! But I have seen friends, as recently as 3 years ago, get taken down and beat up before my eyes, for no reason, in a gay establishment, by policemen who were supposed to be making arrests for drug traffiking...I aint gonna give you the long story, but those officers doings were wrongful enough that many(4) were convicted of severe offenses and lost their jobs...They should have known that this bar had closed circuit cameras rolling! But thast beyond the point!

I do hate your "im saving the workld everyday, so u owe me everything and I can say whatever I want , whenever I want coz I probably saved your mother" attitude. Kudos for taking care of millions of people who need you, I respect that and realize that u do put ur ass on the line at times for others, but u chose this profession and now u bitch and moan and want constant recognition for ur "hard work"?! Gimme a break! Werent u the one slapping MTNwarrior a while back for "complaining" about having to go to war? Its your damn job to serve and protect, the catch is I PERSONALY think that u cannot do this to its best extent if you are prejudiced about any person or group etc...

How bout u explain to me whats so bizzare about a family where two loving parents provide, love, care, shelter and so on for their children? U probably can't, I assume u will come up with something along the lines of: "its wrong, im a cop who saves lives blah blah blah, your too young so Im right"!

Oh and I didnt expect u to come right out and say "ya, I know 5 cops who've beat up faggots for no reason"!! We all know that there is as much corruption in police as everywhere else in life...Stop giving me the "in 20 years ive never met a cop who's commited a crime" shit...coz thats just what it is...crap in its purest form!

 

[bio-chem]

patently false, see this article written by a lawyer http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001873504_sunmarriage07.html

this does not prove your point. the whole article is about how there is uncertinty about how all this will play out in the courts. this is why people want an amendment. they do not want a controversial 4-3 decision where a split state supreme court chooses for them. what happened in massachusetts was not judicial review it was judicial legislation. a big difference, and a travesty of justice. people view this as a way to protect their beliefs. both sides do. whether you accept this or not doesnt matter. the people voting in favor of these laws are not evil people trying to be tyranical and take away others rights. they view this as a way for gays and lesbians to get a government mandated acceptance for their lifestyle.

 

[bio-chem]

is it just me or are those ultra-long essays just a pain to read. ive done a few long ones too, but dang ive written college papers with less bs in them. maybe i just have about a 20 sec attention span and that effects my ability to stay focused over something that seems to be babble. like the author wants to write an addendum to the federalist papers or something.

 

[bandaidwoman]

..... they view this as a way for gays and lesbians to get a government mandated acceptance for their lifestyle.

Thank you for clarifying the real secret agenda behind our opposition to this amendment When all is said and done, this amendment will never be passed anyway so I'm really not that concerned.

I did prove my point, you said states would be forced to recognize gay marriages preformed in states where it is legal.

Originally Posted by bio-chem
if one state allows gay marriage then it would be forcing its laws on another state to also recognize this marriage.

I said that this won't happen. I know it for a fact and I have a contract lawyer backing me up (article written by one) since some won't go by testimonials.....

The professor of interventional radiology here at Emory got married in Massachussetts, (she is gay) came back and found out Georgia would not recognize her marriage....plain and simple. It was just a simple rebuttal.

In this case the Defense of Marriage act allows a state to excercise its perogative on this matter, something states rights advocate applaud.

Once again, the gay marriage amendment is a restrictive amendment of individual rights, the only one in existance if it passes . (which it won't.... and let's not count prohibition since it was repealed).

 

[Rich46yo]

Hey crazy? Who's this? Your live in jocker?

Look kid, I wont lie to you. I didn't get thru that last post of yours. All I had to do was to read the "anti-cop shrieking" and that was enough. Jesus Christ! You bra-burning,bomb throwing, leftist dykes always start shrieking about the brutal police.

You want to know who I'm working with tonight? What partner? Shes a 5' tall, petite, lesbian, police officer. I myself haven't gotten a citizen complaint in 15 years! After all those arrests, all those stops, all those warrants served, all those tickets, all the force Ive been forced to use, all the people Ive come into contact with, and all that time in some of the most dangerous urban areas of the country.

Thats right, my partner tonight. All 5' and 110lbs of her. Shes a good kid, she don't bitch about my cigars and shes handles herself well for a mini-cop. Now don't you feel silly?

And maybe in the future you can keep it under 2,000 words, use more paragraphs, and be more concerned with your own fucking country!......................from your uncle with love......... ...Uncle Rich

 

[bio-chem]

well kids its the seventh inning stretch and the score is tied at 71. the visiting team from san francisco built an early comfortable lead, but was unable to hold on as the home team has put on a furious rally in the middle innings. the clear mvp for the liberals has been a gutsy and determined pitching performance by crazyenough backed by a solid offensive performance by minotaur. It has been a solid team performance by the home town conservatives though, with no clear favorite for mvp should the home team pull it out. of late we have seen an amazing display of offence by a relatively unknown in rich46yo who has come in suprisingly as a middle relief pitcher. this is sure to be an exciting outcome. well at least moreso than the superbowl half-time show.

bandaid- you think the opinion of one lawyer holds sway in this country? if you do thats kind of niave. if you quoted a federal supreme court justice that would hold much more sway. despite what one lawyers opinion is that you know its hardly enough to put to rest the fears of a majority of americans. you seem sanguine on the thought that this amendment will never pass anyways. i think with the majority of americans feeling the way we do on this subject, i hold out hope this amendment will pass.

 

[Rich46yo]

Bio, its good to see someone with a sense of humor here. At least Minotaur is smart enough to know Im just clit busting here a little. Hes a smart motherfucker too, I really respect him. It was people like him that made me "take that trip to the mountain" over gays. I was never mean or insulting to anyone, but like most straight men of my generation back them, I was! ignorant.

And we have made tremendous progress with police/gay relations in my 20+ years on the force, whatever this shreiking foreign dyke says. We have many,many gays on the force. And many of them are first rate cops! Frankly I get embarrased thinking of the days when I thought "they" were "weird". What really changed me was, as a young recruit, I was first on the scene of a young gay guy who'd been beat almost to death by some animals who'd decided because God decided he was going to like other boys, They, had the right to beat him like an animal.

Until the day I die I'll never forget the look on that kids face.

Well we started assigning a ton of resources to catch and prosecute these animals. We started hireing officers who were gay. We started having forumns where officers sat down with gay citizens. We started breaking down, brick by brick, the walls of mistrust between the police and their community. And Im sorry to say this but much of the ignorance was on our part.

Listening to this foreign woman attack that hard work kinda set me off more then usual. You should all try living in a country where the police and military can do anything they want, where homosexuals are beaten and jailed per Govt. policy.

Then tell me how bad you have it......Im bowing out of this now...........your loving Uncle..... ......Uncle Rich

 

[kbm8795]

this does not prove your point. the whole article is about how there is uncertinty about how all this will play out in the courts. this is why people want an amendment. they do not want a controversial 4-3 decision where a split state supreme court chooses for them. what happened in massachusetts was not judicial review it was judicial legislation. a big difference, and a travesty of justice. people view this as a way to protect their beliefs. both sides do. whether you accept this or not doesnt matter. the people voting in favor of these laws are not evil people trying to be tyranical and take away others rights. they view this as a way for gays and lesbians to get a government mandated acceptance for their lifestyle.

I don't think you get it - marriage is a highly individual choice, not a popular mandate from the neighbors. A constitutional amendment should open your own relationship choices for my voting consideration too.

 

[bio-chem]

I don't think you get it - marriage is a highly individual choice, not a popular mandate from the neighbors. A constitutional amendment should open your own relationship choices for my voting consideration too.

why dont you try and explain it to me then? im not sure what you mean by i dont get it? truthfully when i read your posts i dont think you get what it means to be american. and what i mean by that is the ideal that was the goal of our founding fathers. america is a unique place, in the way its history has shaped the psyche of its people. no other people have the history we do. its one of the reasons our form of republic has not worked as well when transplanted to other nations. its the ideal not always fully acknowleged or understood that shapes americas choices almost like adam smith's invisible hand. its sets the usa apart from the world and gives us a firm determination to stay its course despite the worlds opinion of american pride. whether you accept religion or not as the reason america votes in favor of these amendments doesnt matter. you can talk all day long about the wrongs of religion and yet it doesnt take away from our faith it probably strengthens it.

 

[kbm8795]

why dont you try and explain it to me then? im not sure what you mean by i dont get it? truthfully when i read your posts i dont think you get what it means to be american. and what i mean by that is the ideal that was the goal of our founding fathers. america is a unique place, in the way its history has shaped the psyche of its people. no other people have the history we do. its one of the reasons our form of republic has not worked as well when transplanted to other nations. its the ideal not always fully acknowleged or understood that shapes americas choices almost like adam smith's invisible hand. its sets the usa apart from the world and gives us a firm determination to stay its course despite the worlds opinion of american pride. whether you accept religion or not as the reason america votes in favor of these amendments doesnt matter. you can talk all day long about the wrongs of religion and yet it doesnt take away from our faith it probably strengthens it.

Really now. . .I think you are the one who doesn't realize what it means to be an American...and that the rights you hold in the Constitution weren't awarded to you on the whim of your neighbors, but as fundamental individual rights belonging to EVERY citizen, not just the ones you like. So what you don't seem to get about marriage is that it is not about the approval of the neanderthal down the street - the parents don't choose a bride or a groom for you. And if you happen to like someone who goes to a different church, no state or church can stop you from marrying. This means that our own system of justice for years has considered marriage a fundamental HUMAN right, and on the level of the states, it involves nothing more than being included in statutory protections that generally govern PERSONAL property and person rights. Without those protections, any distant relative can and DOES steal property, have bodies exhumed from graves, prevent a partner from making a health decision. All individual experiences, individual relationships in which the state has no practical or compelling reason to deny access to those privileges. That State. . .in this country. . .MEANS other PEOPLE have no right to interfere in the personal choices for marriage without a compelling and practical interest. Simple disapproval is not compelling enough. . .because simple disapproval could be used to deny anyone's marriage. Advocating that other people be allowed to vote to dissolve someone's marriage is just about as tyrannical as you can get - especially without any more reason than you think THEIR choice of partner isn't what YOU believe someone should choose. Unless you are willing to put your own life and love up for the same kind of scrutiny, you don't have any moral or ethical case to base this on being "American."

The gays didn't create these marriage statutes - and they could have been rewritten to accommodate reality. But since lawmakers refused in order to "protect" the "sanctity" of an institution where contracts are seldom enforced and casually broken by irresponsible heterosexuals, gays had no choice but to ask for marriage. They aren't "single" and it is ridiculous and delusionary to pretend they ARE single just to satisfy the insecurities of someone down the street. I have never once seen a single practical argument against these marriages - not one. A lot of conjecture, a lot of fearmongering, and quite a bit of hatred - but not one compelling, practical argument against allowing access to these statutory protections. The alternative is continuing to treat them as "single" - and we all know that is a lie.

Not all of America votes for these amendments. In fact, in locations where gays are more visibly a part of the community, the voting has been against the amendment. But frankly, it should be an insult to ANY American that his neighbor gets to "vote" on whether he can love the person he has vowed to share his life with, or if he will be declared permanently "single." Frankly, I think all the marriage statutes should just be dismantled. If gays can access benefits through existing laws for single people and take care of their families, straights can manage that, too.

But then again, I have a long, long list of people in my life who I would have loved the chance to vote against their marriage, and their subsequent expensive divorces. Shouldn't all the people decide something as important as my neighbor marrying a goldigger? We need to protect the sanctity and the moral purpose of marriage, don't we?

 

[kbm8795]

Notice that Rich didn't mention that for years, police officers did just that in this country - ruthlessly beat and jail gay Americans. In fact, it was one of the more entertaining things they did in their line of work - after all, something must have happened in order for the police to have such a nice, long established hostile relationship with their gay communities. By his own admission, they were ignorant. Wow..another revelation...public servants who could inflict physical and material harm on our own citizens out of ignorance and not be held accountable for their actions.

Of course, that history is automatically erased when the squad suddenly realizes they were supposed to serve and protect ALL the citizens. . .and even hire the qualified ones, too. Can you imagine? Isn't that just more evidence of the erosion of America...a nation in which only white men with their peepees aiming in the proper direction were capable of performing any kind of job.

Yep. . .and Rich himself admits that...heck, he used to believe that same thang too...and..well, still does in many ways. It's the American thang to do. . .spend billions every week to free some foreigners who never did a thing for this country and persecute our own citizens cuz they want the right to automatic inheritance to the partner of their choice.