[Johnnyboysmac]

Well, it certainly appears that way.

Reading the news, I see your dear George is pushing for an constitutional ammendment to remove any possibility of gays having marriage rights, now or in the future, and the democrats largely seem to be behind it.

So the future's looking bleak for the social, civil, and legal rights of another so-called minority group of folks.

Not being a US citizen, I'm a little shaky how your political system works, but I'm surprised how y'all seem to be taking it, as if it's inevitable.

Is it? If it isn't, what can be done about it, and what is being done?

How for instance, would the gun lobby react if an amendment was proposed that removed the right to carry arms?

I mean, all you guys n gals are asking is to be granted EQUAL legal and social rights; is that too much to ask or something?

And isn't there something in your constitution already that provides for equality for all, or did I miss something there?

Where are the howls of protest at the proposed removal of rights for US gays, or is it just that you didn't really have any in the first place?

I'm curious, as it seems quite a big deal, but the impending ammendment seems to be attracting nary a whimper from those it seeks to further repress.

I hope there's a few amongst you with enough courage to stand up for your rights, before you don't have any left.

Just a Sunday arvo thought...

Cheers

Johnboi...

[Captain Obvious]

There is no guaranteed right to be married or for the government to recognize any union.
There is no uproar because the majority of people in the world, not just the US, are not in favor of gay marriages. All of the things that are argued as benefits for gay couples that could be gained through marriage can be gained legally through other methods that do not require marriage. The exception being tax breaks and health plans. Tax breaks should not be given to gay couples unless they have a child and private health companies should not be forced to recognize gay couples as a unit unless they want to.
I am not in favor of an Amendment to the Constitution because it is unnecessary legislation but I am opposed to gay marriages. As I said you are incorrect in your assessment that this is any infringement on an actual right because it is not. It is a benefit that is reflective of the values of the populace. If there are ever gay marriages they should come with a 50.0001% majority support from the people who make up the county not because a few activists feel like they can get their agenda pushed through.

[Atomic Rooster]

What the hey...let gays marry. Let them suffer like the rest of us. And besides, it'll give divorce lawyers a whole new clientele.

[greenamp]

I think the problem stems from the governments actual recognition of marriage as a legal union. Marriage should only be recognized on the levels of morality and religion, because that is where it's origins lie.

What Shrub wants to do is make a constitutional amendment based on his religous beliefs, and that scares the hell outta me personally.

Morally I am against the idea of gay marriage. But I am against the idea of the government making an official ban on them doing so.

Homosexuality is a moral issue which exists as a personal, non harmful decision between 2 individuals with inalienable rights, and the gov't has no place restricting those rights.

[AKcrab]

Since when do we use the constitution to take away or restrict rights?
Oh, that's right... It's like when blacks were slaves and women couldn't vote.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Morally I am against the idea of gay marriage. But I am against the idea of the government making an official ban on them doing so.

Morally, I am against any marriage of people who are not the same age and the same height. I want an amendment, too!

[chabig]

Gay marriage: A marriage between a happy man and happy woman.

Seriously, remember when gay meant happy? Then it was redefined by the homosexuals. That's what they're up to again. For the history on mankind, the word marriage has referred to a union between a man and a woman. They want to redefine that. I believe that's what angers people most. As someone said, there are other legal ways to obtain the status married people enjoy.

Chris

[voyageur]

I will never understand what the objection is to homosexuality. If two people love each other and are happy, the world is a better place for it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
[B All of the things that are argued as benefits for gay couples that could be gained through marriage can be gained legally through other methods that do not require marriage. The exception being tax breaks and health plans. Tax breaks should not be given to gay couples unless they have a child and private health companies should not be forced to recognize gay couples as a unit unless they want to. [/B]

I'm pretty shocked that a lawyer would breeze past the actual legal situation so easily. Go back and look at your decedents estates and taxation materials again. The consequences are a little more severe than you imply. I'd also suggest looking at evidence law, pension law, adoption law, immigration law, administrative law (with respect to benefits such as Social Security), property law (does tenancy by the entirety ring a bell?), etc, etc. These are big problems and most of them can't be contracted away.

Also, this "benefits shouldn't be given unless the couple have a child" thing. Why is it that heterosexuals aren't required to have children to get these benefits? What is so critical about making 5% of the population jump through hoops that isn't critical enough to make 95% jump through hoops? It can't be a cost thing, since you have the percentages backwards. Is this just the tyranny of the majority?

If it is all about kids, can I please get a discount on my taxes? Why is it I am subsidizing other people's kids, but i am not allowed to have a normal relationship with my government because my partner and I don't have kids? Why is it that childless heterosexuals get to have that normal relationship with their government, but gay couples with kids don't? Why are you penalizing innocent children because you don't like their parents? Won't somebody please think of the children?

Anyway, the bottom line is that the marriage amendment appears not to have enough support to be ratified. Given that, and other trends, we will have gay marriage within a few years. All your stupid, flawed arguments won't change that, so you might as well get used to it. And don't worry, western civilization won't fall.

[Dennis002]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:

There is no uproar because the majority of people in the world, not just the US, are not in favor of gay marriages. All of the things that are argued as benefits for gay couples that could be gained through marriage can be gained legally through other methods that do not require marriage. The exception being tax breaks and health plans. Tax breaks should not be given to gay couples unless they have a child and private health companies should not be forced to recognize gay couples as a unit unless they want to.
I am not in favor of an Amendment to the Constitution because it is unnecessary legislation but I am opposed to gay marriages. As I said you are incorrect in your assessment that this is any infringement on an actual right because it is not. It is a benefit that is reflective of the values of the populace. If there are ever gay marriages they should come with a 50.0001% majority support from the people who make up the county not because a few activists feel like they can get their agenda pushed through.

Oh dear. Captain Oblivious. Dictatorship supported bij 50.0001 % of the german population would probably have made a gas chamber a happy place to be..
No. not the same, but perhaps the same way of handeling logic..

[Saul Goode]

You guys got it all bassackwards. An amendment is the exact RIGHT way to do it. For FAR too long new laws are created that circumvent the constitution and justices have been getting away with legislating from the bench. Let them put an amendment up for a vote, then we can let the American people speak for once.

That being said, here's my opinion. Who cares. Ban it, don't ban it. I don't care one way or the other. I think people should be able to screw whom ever they want but marriage is a different matter.

Besides, what's to stop two friends from getting married just to rip of the system? How you gonna stop that? Ask people to screw on front of you to prove your really gay?

I'll prolly get flamed but I'm just being honest here.

[CD Hanks]

As an American, I really don't see the big deal about it. Personally I think Gays should be able to marry, no questions asked. The state should recognize a gay marriage. Now, whether they want to get married in a church is a different story. I'm not a religious person, but I can see where most churches would go apeshit over this.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Saul Goode:
Besides, what's to stop two friends from getting married just to rip of the system?

What's to stop male and female friends from getting married to rip off the system?

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by chabig:
For the history on mankind, the word marriage has referred to a union between a man and a woman. They want to redefine that.

For the history of mankind, the word property owner has referred to a white male. They want to define that.

Just because it was initially defined that way doesn't make it right. Blacks and women weren't definitionally humans for quiet some time. I bet similar arguments were made around the time blacks and women were gaining more rights.

Here's what I think should happen - get church as far away from government as possible. Am I the only one who seems to be learning the lesson of the pharisees? Whenever you get religion and government mixed together, bad stuff starts happening. There would be no "attack on marriage" if marriage (suppose to be a religious institution) hadn't been mixed so tightly with status and privilege granted by the government.

Anyway, from my anecdotal evidence (only the few gay men and woman I know), I don't think there's a lot of people in the gay population who care if marriage is redefined or not. They are just worried about it being a "black's drink at different water fountains" thing if something else is done.

End Sunday Morning Rant,
Matt Fahrenbacher

[edit: fixed bad grammer]

[kmkkid]

Thank God I live in Canada.



Chris

[Sod Off Sadr]

off to the polwar lounge with you!

[george68]

Gay people should not be married. If we let them get married, then mormons will want to be married. If that happens, then kentucky rednecks will want to marry their cousins.

Marriage is for 1 male, and 1 female.

End of ****ing story.

- Rob

[velodev]

Originally posted by voyageur:
I will never understand what the objection is to homosexuality. If two people love each other and are happy, the world is a better place for it.

Without making any issues, I have pondered over this thought for quite some time...

Does homosexuality occur in any other species in nature? Besides animals that change sex or primitive species... do any mammals OR any other species also have homosexual unions?

[george68]

Originally posted by voyageur:
I will never understand what the objection is to homosexuality. If two people love each other and are happy, the world is a better place for it.

It's not that. It's if they are allowed to be LEGALLY married, then all the health plans must cover their gay partner. But then mormons will want to get married (mutliple partners) and pretty soon people will be able to marry anybody they want, with as many spouses as they want, so nobody gets treated unfairly.

The ****ign definition of marriage is a man and a woman... if you're a gay COUPLE, you can be a COUPLE, or get a legal UNION, but you cannot be married. Why? You need TWO sexes.

- Rob

[AB^2=BCxAC]

I've met enough gay couples to know that the larger population is wrong when it condemns gays by trying to uphold the "sacred vow between a man and a woman", by thinking these people taint the moral values of the world, and thinks gays can't love eachother or raise children as good or better than most families.

I'm doing my best to help out this cause by contacting every local and state representative for my neighbourhood and letting my opinion be stated as factually as possible.

I'm seriously scared for all my gay friends.

[Eug Wanker]

Still not moved to the politics forum?

Originally posted by velodev:
Without making any issues, I have pondered over this thought for quite some time...

Does homosexuality occur in any other species in nature? Besides animals that change sex or primitive species... do any mammals OR any other species also have homosexual unions?

Very common, but I fail to see how that really has any relationship to US constitutional rights.

Anyways, if you're gonna ban marriage for a specific group, I think a better marriage ban would be for idiot rednecks.

[velodev]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Still not moved to the politics forum?


Very common, but I fail to see how that really has any relationship to US constitutional rights.

Anyways, if you're gonna ban marriage for a specific group, I think a better marriage ban would be for idiot rednecks.

It doesn't... it was a non-malicious threadjack. Can you share which animals, for example?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by george68:
Gay people should not be married. If we let them get married, then mormons will want to be married. If that happens, then kentucky rednecks will want to marry their cousins.

Mormons CAN get married. Just not to multiple spouses.
Why the **** should laws on incest and polygamy be called into question by equal rights?

"Next thing you know, them n*ggers will want to marry their white whoors."

Dumb.

-s*

[Gemini]

The problem is that gov't shouldn't have anything to do with any kind of marriage. Marriage is a religious matter, not a political one. We should have no laws regarding marriage whatsoever.

[chabig]

Whether you are for or against gay marriage, President Bush is in no position to amend the constitution all by himself. First, two-thirds of both the house and senate must agree to do it. Then three-quarters of the states must vote to do it.

The President has an opinion. So what? Everybody does. But if we end up with this amendment you cannot blame the President. It will truly be the will of the people, which the Bush haters fought so hard to defend after the 2000 election. To ignore the will of the people now would be the ultimate hypocrisy for the left.

Chris

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by velodev:
It doesn't... it was a non-malicious threadjack. Can you share which animals, for example?

Here is one article.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by velodev:
It doesn't... it was a non-malicious threadjack. Can you share which animals, for example?

Homosexuality in non-human animals
Not mentioned there are the penguins.

-s*

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Here is one article.

Wow, the females get on almost hourly? Damn...

Matt Fahrenbacher

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by george68:
Gay people should not be married. If we let them get married, then mormons will want to be married. If that happens, then kentucky rednecks will want to marry their cousins.

Marriage is for 1 male, and 1 female.

End of ****ing story.

- Rob

If we let heterosexuals get married, then the next thing is homosexuals will want to get married . . .

Oh wait.

But Rob, you seem to find it easy to resist that part of the slippery slope. Why do you think any other is any harder?

Not that Mormons and Moslems shouldn't be able to marry how ever many their religion says they should. It's sheer intolerance to say otherwise. And just because we got the issue of Mormon marriage wrong in the 19th century, doesn't mean it is too late to fix our mistake.

[Captain Obvious]

I've covered this already back in the iWrite days and the gay marriage thread got long and annoying. Do a search because I don't feel like doing it over again.

Anyway, I just finished the Sunday mornings and in one of their little Townhall meeting focus groups you pretty much saw the opinion on this issue from the perspective of a variety of Americans. People do not support gay marriage, they do not support discrimination but most don't view marriage as a right so denied access to it does not fall within those bounds, they really don't support giving the same benefits and while there is no support at this time for an Amendment the issue is not one they are going to change their mind over.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
most don't view marriage as a right so denied access to it does not fall within those bounds, they really don't support giving the same benefits and while there is no support at this time for an Amendment the issue is not one they are going to change their mind over.

The fact that "most don't view marriage as a right" doesn't mean that it's not, it just means that they're as wrong about it as Bush is and that we can all hope that the system of checks in place to prevent dictatorship by the majority will hold up to this onslaught on your republic.

In fact, marriage is a whole COLLECTION of rights - starting with tax benefits, or the RIGHT to see your spouse in hospital (can you argue that this is not a right? if not, how does it not apply wrt gay marriage?), the RIGHT to inherit from your spouse after his death, or to live on in a shared house that belonged to your spouse...

Anybody who claims otherwise, and that includes you and all those wonderful people who appear to support your POV, are just WRONG.

-s*

[OSX Abuser]

[MacGorilla]

It is interesting how this Administration is all for states' rights...except when it conflicts with their moral agenda.

[phoenixboy70]

what i would like to know at this point, is whether it is important for gays that they are married in a christian church, and if the ceremony is important?

though i fully support the notion that gay couples should be treated the same way as straights do under the law, i don't understand why they would even remotly want to associate with that kind of particular religion.

the term "marriage" is just a word which, oddly enough, actually has changed over the years, since in many MANY cases in the past it used to describe a FORCED and arranged union between a man and a woman, which could not be seperated.

i wonder how many conservatives want to go back in history to the days of "...'till death do you part...whether you like it or not".

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by chabig:
Whether you are for or against gay marriage, President Bush is in no position to amend the constitution all by himself. First, two-thirds of both the house and senate must agree to do it. Then three-quarters of the states must vote to do it.

Finally, someone with makes some sense and shoots down the "Bush to destroy civil rights of gays" platitude.

If you folks are so against an amendment, contact your local representatives. Organize a campaign. Simply bitching and whining on a mac-centric messageboard will accomplish nothing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
and while there is no support at this time for an Amendment the issue is not one they are going to change their mind over.

Individuals might not be changing their minds, but support for equal rights has been increasing stadily over the last few decades. You can also see this in generational attitudes, and in fact, the two trends are connected. People tend to form their attitudes by early adulthood. The older a person is, the longer ago that formation took place. But people do eventually die, and along with them, their attitudes. Those people and their stale attitudes are then replaced by younger people whose attitudes may be very different. So while individuals may not change their minds, society does.

As you say, there is insufficient support to amend the constitution. But amending the Constitution is the only way to prevent the demographic shift in attitudes from having its inevitable effect. If you can't lock in the current balance of attitudes, you will never be able to do it. That is exactly why the religious right is trying to stampede this issue now. They know in the long run they are losing the debate.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Finally, someone with makes some sense and shoots down the "Bush to destroy civil rights of gays" platitude.

If you folks are so against an amendment, contact your local representatives. Organize a campaign. Simply bitching and whining on a mac-centric messageboard will accomplish nothing.

The problem is: As the Iraq war proved, you can sell ANYTHING to the American people, no matter how made-up or wrong.

And having a leader endorse such a thing isn't exactly a beacon of Freedom and Liberty™.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The problem is: As the Iraq war proved, you can sell ANYTHING to the American people, no matter how made-up or wrong.

As a German proves that ignorance and xenophobia isn't limited to Americans . . .

[James L]

I would love to see a demographic break down of those who fear gay marriage, and those who don't.

Myself, if two people are in love, they deserve the ability to marry. I could give a rats ass if they are 2 men, one man one woman, or 2 women. I am not afraid of it, grossed out by it, etc. If two people love each other than I simply respect that.

For the person who said "what is to stop two friends from getting married to rip off the system?".... that is happening now between men and women. Why would it all of a sudden begin to happen when same sex marriages are allowed? This is a classic example of the truly ignorant thought processes some people have on this matter. Why would 2 people be any more corrupt in a marriage because they are same sex? Opposite sex couples are corrupt all the time already!

How does letting two gay men or women marry hurt anyone? Answer: It does not! Who cares if they are married. Who cares if they are walking down the street holding hands. If they are 2 good citizens in love, what's the big deal?

Times change, and people must learn to be more understanding. For a long time your country thought it perfectly acceptable to enslave those from another continent. Eventually more intellectual heads thought otherwise, and it took a war to end slavery. Hopefully people will learn to be more accepting of a perfectly harmless act (same sex marriages) without it coming to that!

Cheers,

James.

p.s. for the record I am a 29 year old married (to a female) guy!

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by voyageur:
I will never understand what the objection is to homosexuality. If two people love each other and are happy, the world is a better place for it.

I have no objection to homosexuality whatsoever. I am, however, a little uneasy about marraige. Marraige is not just about two people loving each other and living together - as has been pointed out, it has many implications as far as the government is concerned. Now, I am generally opposed to laws that restrict personal freedom. I would much rather have sodomy laws repealed (hey, what two people do consentually in private doesn't concern me and it seems stupid to have laws that restrict that type of behavior) but still not allow gay marraiges.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As a German proves that ignorance and xenophobia isn't limited to Americans . . .

Glad to be of service, though you may note that we didn't buy it...

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Glad to be of service, though you may note that we didn't buy it...

Enough bought it to compose a formidable military and political party.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The fact that "most don't view marriage as a right" doesn't mean that it's not, it just means that they're as wrong about it as Bush is and that we can all hope that the system of checks in place to prevent dictatorship by the majority will hold up to this onslaught on your republic.

In fact, marriage is a whole COLLECTION of rights - starting with tax benefits, or the RIGHT to see your spouse in hospital (can you argue that this is not a right? if not, how does it not apply wrt gay marriage?), the RIGHT to inherit from your spouse after his death, or to live on in a shared house that belonged to your spouse...

Anybody who claims otherwise, and that includes you and all those wonderful people who appear to support your POV, are just WRONG.

-s*

I don't know what else can or should be said.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Glad to be of service, though you may note that we didn't buy it...

Wow! I love the way you speak for entire countries and all the people in them. "Americans" this, and "we" that. However, this isn't the time or place to rehash that topic -- either the iraq war, or your anti-American bigotry.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Enough bought it to compose a formidable military and political party.

Huh?

You mean the British and the Australians?

Or is this some weird Nazi slur?

Sure I could have just said, "And as the Nazis in Germany proved in the '30s, you can sell ANYTHING to a people, no matter how made-up or wrong."

But that would have missed the aspect of THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION being very adept at doing just that, making Bush's endorsement of this attack on Liberty™ all the more worrisome.

Of course, one could just construe it as "anti-American bigotry" as if repeated lumping and repeating would make it any less wrong.

No, Simey, I don't see how agreeing with most of the Americans I know and care about is in any way "anti-American bigotry".

-s*

[ort888]

Against same sex marraiges? Don't have one.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
what i would like to know at this point, is whether it is important for gays that they are married in a christian church, and if the ceremony is important?

though i fully support the notion that gay couples should be treated the same way as straights do under the law, i don't understand why they would even remotly want to associate with that kind of particular religion.

This is an interesting question, and although I am neither gay nor Christian, I'll try to answer it. A childhood friend of mine grew up to become a Unitarian minister. She is also gay, and I believe had the historical distinction of performing the first wedding of a gay couple in Massachusetts after it was legalized here. Having the support of their spiritual community as well as the state was important. Now, most Unitarians are not Christians, but there are other branches of Christianity which I believe are tolerant of gays, at least in certain parishes. And I believe there are some gay Christians who believe they can help change their religion from within on this matter.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Homosexuality in non-human animals
Not mentioned there are the penguins.

-s*

Has anyone personally asked any of them if they were gay?

I've seen my dog try to hump male dogs.

Heck, he even goes after the cat when she is in heat.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Has anyone personally asked any of them if they were gay?

I've seen my dog try to hump male dogs.

Heck, he even goes after the cat when she is in heat.

you can keep asking the same questions in every thread, but the answers will not change.

Animals that prefer their own sex even in the presence of members of the opposite sex won't stop doing so just because you refuse and refuse to acknowledge the fact.

Regardless of whether you think your dog is queer or not.

-s*

edit: got to get my negatives, er, straight.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Has anyone personally asked any of them if they were gay?

I've seen my dog try to hump male dogs.

Heck, he even goes after the cat when she is in heat.

Well, I asked my dog. He said, no, he wasn't.

He knew of a terrier and a beagle down the block who, according to him, LIKED it when their owners dressed them up. So, you know, it sounds suspicious to him. Not that there's anything wrong with that.