america is full of bigots

[quote name='studio']I wonder whats next, separate water fountains, or internment camps?[/quote]

Because after all if you don't buy into the gay agenda lock stock and barrel, isn't that what you really want?
 
You're right, there are lots of bigots.
Check out ratherbiased.com, whcih shows how Rather labels any group he doesn't like 'conservative', while not mentioning the word 'liberal.'
And all those haters, on 'Christians', 'evangelicals', 'Republicans', 'young white males', 'heterosexuals', 'supporters of traditional marriage', etc.
Ironically, this issue you're referring to represents a *great deal* of multiculturalism: " equal support from men and women, blacks and whites."
Wow. These amendments truly did unite great portions of the population [since 100% agreement is entirely impossible].
 
I didn't vote yes for the ohio provision because it seemed slightly ambigious to me. I think if a stance is going to be taken on this issue, it should be more concrete. Personally, I don't care what you want to marry as long as it's consensual and all responsibilities are taken as with a "man and woman" marriage. I was kinda surprised at the huge marginOhio passed it by though, considering its ambigious nature. Oh well.
 
DT if you want to come up with examples of liberals being close minded come up with something better. Bush kept using liberal as an insult during the debates, your president, he's a little more important than dan rather. Besides, a country being united against something doesn't mean it's right or wrong. You had support among all sectors for stopping loving couples from marrying. If two guys moved in an apartment (as straight guys often have roomates) and no one told me they were married, how the hell would I know? What effect would it possibly have on me? Only when you say "they're gay and married" that moral outrage gets out of control, even making people believe that it is an attack on their marriage. If no one told them they wouldn't have know and nothing would have changed, how is it an attack on their marriage?
 
[quote name='dental_regurgitation'][quote name='bignick']Homosexuality is a disease.[/quote]

That's pretty mean Nick.[/quote]

Remind me to stay out of this forum.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']DT if you want to come up with examples of liberals being close minded come up with something better. Bush kept using liberal as an insult during the debates, your president, he's a little more important than dan rather. Besides, a country being united against something doesn't mean it's right or wrong. You had support among all sectors for stopping loving couples from marrying. If two guys moved in an apartment (as straight guys often have roomates) and no one told me they were married, how the hell would I know? What effect would it possibly have on me? Only when you say "they're gay and married" that moral outrage gets out of control, even making people believe that it is an attack on their marriage. If no one told them they wouldn't have know and nothing would have changed, how is it an attack on their marriage?[/quote]

Alonzomourning you need to read my posts.
Did I say in this thread was for or against gay marriage or these amendments? I'm merely commenting on the hypocrisy of many on the left calling these people 'bigots' when we see far more and far greater bigotry from the left. I don't think they would have passed by such large margins, if you didn't get the judges and mayors forcing it on the people. Right or wrong, they were breaking the law, and while when citizens break unjust laws, it's civil disobedience, when judges and mayors break them, it's tyranny.

And was liberal used as insult, or as a decriptor? Kerry is liberal, he and Edwards are two of the most liberal Congressmen. Some people think that's good, others don't. It's not like he said 'asshole' which would certainly be an insult.

And unless you're leaving to go to Canada [or live outside the US], Bush is also now still your president as well.
 
Reality's Fringe said:
I didn't vote yes for the ohio provision because it seemed slightly ambigious to me. I think if a stance is going to be taken on this issue, it should be more concrete. Personally, I don't care what you want to marry as long as it's consensual and all responsibilities are taken as with a "man and woman" marriage. I was kinda surprised at the huge marign ohio passed it by though, considering it's ambigious nature. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Actually compared to other states amendments it was a smaller margin by which it passed and most of that was due its ambigious nature. It's a very loosely worded amendment that will lead to wild interpretations and likely many suits in the courts (al which most of Ohio's government warned about).
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='bignick']Homosexuality is a disease.[/quote]

And BUSH is the cure.[/quote]

i'm hoping that these are both jokes or meant to be taken lightly- if not that's some sick ass brainwashed garble. you will be blessed with gay children (if we even make it that far), go ahead and kick your sons or daughters out
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Alonzomourning you need to read my posts.
Did I say in this thread was for or against gay marriage or these amendments? I'm merely commenting on the hypocrisy of many on the left calling these people 'bigots' when we see far more and far greater bigotry from the left. I don't think they would have passed by such large margins, if you didn't get the judges and mayors forcing it on the people. Right or wrong, they were breaking the law, and while when citizens break unjust laws, it's civil disobedience, when judges and mayors break them, it's tyranny.

And was liberal used as insult, or as a decriptor? Kerry is liberal, he and Edwards are two of the most liberal Congressmen. Some people think that's good, others don't. It's not like he said 'asshole' which would certainly be an insult. And unless you're leaving to go to Canada [or live outside the US], Bush is also now still your president as well.[/quote]
.

What is the equivalent bigotry on the left? You are complaining about partisanship, how one side cannot accept the other has a valid argument. Also, it was an insult, that description in modern day america is an insult. Kerry knew this and bush knew this. And if you want to say dan rather calling people conservative is an insult, then you can't say (especially given the current climate), that being called liberal in the way bush did it was not an insult. Also I'd like for you to name one law gays in MA broke by marrying, I cannot find one. They did not marry before the ruling took effect, and throughout history judges have made rulings that dramatically alter the course of the nation (brown vs board of education being one). To suggest that they do not have the authority to make rulings without the support of the people would force you to reexamine the results of previous unpopular rulings. It often comes down to judges to protect the minority against the majority. Again, there was no law banning gay marriage the judges even had to overturn, there was no law mentioned at all. What law were they breaking? Also, I am living in Canada at the moment, though I'm a u.s. citizen. Thankfully gay marriage is legal in much of canada, and is supposed to be legalized throughout the whole of canada soon (it's basically a technicality at this point, since the courts have ruled in favor of it and the government supports it).
 
you know I dont comment on this stuff ever until now.

The question I have is why do the "gay" people of this country want to get married under a religion that doesnt accept or allow it? I can see some ammendment to allow them the sought after benefits of marriage without actually being married.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']you know I dont comment on this stuff ever until now.

The question I have is why do the "gay" people of this country want to get married under a religion that doesnt accept or allow it? I can see some ammendment to allow them the sought after benefits of marriage without actually being married.[/quote]

The thing is marriage is no longer purely a religious institution, they want the state, not religion, to recognize their marriage. For the vast majority it is a secular issue. They would generally be married in city halls, and the few churches that support it. Also, the problem with civil unions is that others states are unlikely to honor the same benefits. If they are married it is much easier to move from state to state and still retain the full benefits of marriage. Also, to many, it is the principal. They feel they have been denied what to the vast majority is considered a basic human right. A gay or lesbian person cannot enter into a heterosexual marriage AND maintain a happy and satisfying marriage for both, or either, individual.
 
Actually, the state cannot stop Homosexual marriage. Freedom of Religion.

It can just refuse to give them legal protection. Now, I was all for Civil Unions. I understand the separate but equal argument against civil unions bu as long as homosexuals got full legal benefitis I had no problems giving it a different name under the law.

Seeing the recent ballot initiative in ohio though, it gives me great pause. That ballot initiative stripped the rights away from thousands of Ohio Citizens.

I just, I don't understand why something that would effect 3% of the US population is such a threat to the institution of marriage. Heterosexuals do enough to screw up marriage by themselves.

And Homosexuality isn't a disease.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']you know I dont comment on this stuff ever until now.

The question I have is why do the "gay" people of this country want to get married under a religion that doesnt accept or allow it? I can see some ammendment to allow them the sought after benefits of marriage without actually being married.[/quote]

Actually some of the state amendments that passed yesterday outlawed civil unions or ANY benefits from being partners for gay couples. Why the fuck would people want to pass an amendment like that? Especially with the huge percentage of "revolving door" marriages between men and women in this country.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Actually, the state cannot stop Homosexual marriage. Freedom of Religion.[/quote]

Ah no. Marriage is a function of the state, it is a state license. That most people prefered to get married in a religious ceremony does not change that fact.

[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Seeing the recent ballot initiative in ohio though, it gives me great pause. That ballot initiative stripped the rights away from thousands of Ohio Citizens.[/quote]

Thats rich. So you are suggesting that when the Ohio constitution was ratified gay marriage was one of the principles enshrined in it?

Or do we just not care for ballot initiatives when they go against us?

[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I just, I don't understand why something that would effect 3% of the US population is such a threat to the institution of marriage. Heterosexuals do enough to screw up marriage by themselves.
[/quote]

And I just don't understand why gay "rights" is an issue. Gays can love one another to thier hearts content without obtaining a marriage license. Oh wait, but that would expose this for what it is really about: financial entitlement.

CTL
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='dtcarson']Alonzomourning you need to read my posts.
Did I say in this thread was for or against gay marriage or these amendments? I'm merely commenting on the hypocrisy of many on the left calling these people 'bigots' when we see far more and far greater bigotry from the left. I don't think they would have passed by such large margins, if you didn't get the judges and mayors forcing it on the people. Right or wrong, they were breaking the law, and while when citizens break unjust laws, it's civil disobedience, when judges and mayors break them, it's tyranny.

And was liberal used as insult, or as a decriptor? Kerry is liberal, he and Edwards are two of the most liberal Congressmen. Some people think that's good, others don't. It's not like he said 'asshole' which would certainly be an insult. And unless you're leaving to go to Canada [or live outside the US], Bush is also now still your president as well.[/quote]
.

What is the equivalent bigotry on the left? You are complaining about partisanship, how one side cannot accept the other has a valid argument. Also, it was an insult, that description in modern day america is an insult. Kerry knew this and bush knew this. And if you want to say dan rather calling people conservative is an insult, then you can't say (especially given the current climate), that being called liberal in the way bush did it was not an insult. Also I'd like for you to name one law gays in MA broke by marrying, I cannot find one. They did not marry before the ruling took effect, and throughout history judges have made rulings that dramatically alter the course of the nation (brown vs board of education being one). To suggest that they do not have the authority to make rulings without the support of the people would force you to reexamine the results of previous unpopular rulings. It often comes down to judges to protect the minority against the majority. Again, there was no law banning gay marriage the judges even had to overturn, there was no law mentioned at all. What law were they breaking? Also, I am living in Canada at the moment, though I'm a u.s. citizen. Thankfully gay marriage is legal in much of canada, and is supposed to be legalized throughout the whole of canada soon (it's basically a technicality at this point, since the courts have ruled in favor of it and the government supports it).[/quote]

The Rather/"conservative" thing had to do with labeling [bigotry], not describing. He continually labels things as 'right wing' or 'conservative' while rarely if ever saying 'left wing' or 'liberal' [using both would lend credence to the descriptor.]
Why is "liberal" an insult? Is there something inherently wrong with being liberal? Are liberals ashamed of their views? [Rhetorical question, obviously there is, because most 'liberals' call themselves 'moderates' or 'centrists'.]
I was speaking mostly about CA, that's the one I know a little more about, and Gavin Newsom, who was handing out marriage licenses like beads at mardi gras, even though at the time they were specifically not legal. Are you as vocal a supporter of Roy Moore, the judge in Alabama who had the Ten Commandments statue in the courthouse? That didn't hurt anyone, but he got fired for it; Newsome is praised. Both of them were either standing up for the rights of people, or abusing their post.
Judges are supposed to interpret laws based on the Constitution [state or federal] and other case law, but always subordinate to the Constitutions. They are not supposed to 'protect the minority from the majority'. That's what the legislature is for, the ones who actually write the laws. Brown vs Board of Ed was a landmark case, which countered one of its own [Plessy vs. Ferguson, I believe], and stated a current law was unconstitutional. If people bring that to the courts, and the courts decide that about gay marriage [or many other things], i'll abide by that [I'll support it even more if the court is made up of consitutionalists]. Courts should be reactive not proactive.
 
Gay rights is about many things, monetary entitlement is one but not the only one. It is to stop the state from treating them as two "friends", with no spousal rights, and to start treating them as married which, for all intensive purposes, they are. Here is a website stating the benefits that gays are denied, since they cannot marry:
gay marriage benefits

Here are some highlights of the 1,049 rights they are denied:

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:


Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:


Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Gay rights is about many things, monetary entitlement is one but not the only one. It is to stop the state from treating them as two "friends", with no spousal rights, and to start treating them as married which, for all intensive purposes, they are. Here is a website stating the benefits that gays are denied, since they cannot marry:
gay marriage benefits

Here are some highlights of the 1,049 rights they are denied:

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:


Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:


Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits[/quote]

And these same rights are equally denied to heterosexuals who don't marry.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Actually, the state cannot stop Homosexual marriage. Freedom of Religion.[/quote]

Ah no. Marriage is a function of the state, it is a state license. That most people prefered to get married in a religious ceremony does not change that fact.
[/quote]

True. Hence the presence of common-law marriage. And how many religions, Christian or not, offiically support gay marriage?

[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Seeing the recent ballot initiative in ohio though, it gives me great pause. That ballot initiative stripped the rights away from thousands of Ohio Citizens.[/quote]

Thats rich. So you are suggesting that when the Ohio constitution was ratified gay marriage was one of the principles enshrined in it?[/quote]

Or marriage at all? Is there a "right to marriage" in a state or federal constitution? It could be argued that the "right to marriage" falls under "pursuit of happiness" and had they approached that argument, the constitutionality of the laws might have been challenged. But there's a backlash against the apparent usurpation of power by many ofthese judges/executive officers, that people voted not against gay marriage, but for the rule of law, and now if it's added to the constitution, it'll be that much harder to change.

Or do we just not care for ballot initiatives when they go against us?

[quote name='CTLesq']
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I just, I don't understand why something that would effect 3% of the US population is such a threat to the institution of marriage. Heterosexuals do enough to screw up marriage by themselves.
[/quote]

And I just don't understand why gay "rights" is an issue. Gays can love one another to thier hearts content without obtaining a marriage license. Oh wait, but that would expose this for what it is really about: financial entitlement.

CTL[/quote]

Exactly. Texas [I think] struck down anti-sodomy laws, so the physical relationship is now OK at least there; and if a couple guys [or girls] live together, who's to know, and whose business is it, how they feel about one another? I think the militants helped defeat their own cause.
 
"And these same rights are equally denied to heterosexuals who don't marry. "

Partisan or not that is an absolutely ridiculous and absurd comment. They have an option to marry, they can gain those rights whenever they want. You don't have to support gay marriage to see the argument that "well heterosexuals who don't marry don't have those rights either" is one of the worst arguments against gay rights.

Also, being liberal is not an insult, but the country has moved to the right, therefore the democratic party has to become more moderate, something the republican party does not have to do. Also, it is a double standard to suggest that calling someone a conservative, to dismiss their argument, is an insult, but calling someone a liberal is merely a descriptive term.

Roy Moore was using his government authority to make an endorsement of religion, to exclude those who did not share his christian views. He directly opposed laws and the courts (which supposedly you are concerned about). As a nation that upholds the seperation of church and state, that was inexcusable.

You also need to understand that these "activist judges" are declaring the banning gay marriage is unconstitutional according to their state constitutions. They are not just saying it should be in effect, they are saying that banning it does not agree with the constitution (of course constitunial rulings aren't meant to agree with those who wrote the constitution, but they are meant to agree with the concepts outlined in their present day form). The thing is the u.s. constituion, and many state constitutions, do not mention gay marriage. In todays society their is no legal basic to deny gay marriage without it being enshrined in the constitution, especially due to the fact that many constitutions ban discrimination on the basic of race, gender and, most importantly in this case, sexual preference. If discrimination based on sexual prefence is outlawed, then every benefit available for heterosexual couples HAS to be available for gay couples. I agree with you that judges are subordinate to constitutions, that's the basic of my argument, but I don't agree that they aren't also supposed to protect the minority from the majority.
 
"Exactly. Texas [I think] struck down anti-sodomy laws, so the physical relationship is now OK at least there; and if a couple guys [or girls] live together, who's to know, and whose business is it, how they feel about one another? I think the militants helped defeat their own cause. "

While Massachusetts can say they finally have legalized marriage for all of its citizens, Texas can now officially say they have legalized touching for all of its citizens. It really shows the sad state of certain parts of this country that only recently are consenting adults allowed to touch other consenting adults.
 
Umm... Texas did not get rid of the "touching" laws the Supreme Court did, Texas fought against it and lost. But the new Right Wing Relgious Jackass filled Supreme Court should make it illegal again.
 
I said in my very next line, CTLesq, "It can just refuse to give them legal protection."

I clearly stated that, and you just repeated what I said. A State cannot deny the marriage of two individuals under religious grounds. They can just deny the legal acknowledgement of that marriage (IE a marriage certificate). That's exactly what I said. That's exactkly what you just said in correcting me. You're correcting me by repeating me, and it makes you appear as purposely combative.

Any priest can marry any two men or any two women. Freedom of Religion. Then those two men or women can go around claiming their married. You don't have to acknowledge that. The state doesn't have to acknowledge that. But as a religious matter they have the right to get married and wear a ring. The state can't stop it. They can just keep them from declaring themselves partners in a legal sense.

On your second point, you appear to be combative for it's own sake. I didn't say anything about the constitution of Ohio. What I pointed out was that ballot initiative effects far more than homosexuality. And that gives me pause, because it strips rights away from non-married heterosexual couples. It goes beyond the homosexual issue. If you live in Ohio, living with your girlfrined or boyfriend, and not yet married, you have less rights. Your state taxes wil be higher, you will have no legal recourses in case of a split or illness, and you will be ineligable to certain social welfare programs. That particular initiative is much more influential than just in homosexual relationships.

On rereading myself, maybe it's my fault because I didn't explain that fully in my previous post on this position. I have mentioned it on other threads. SO if there's some confusion I apologize.

And on your third point, what do you mean by financial entitlement? Look, I agree that people have the right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom. While I have several friends who are homosexuals, I personally don't support that particular lifestyle. But if your basic objection is that you don't want homosexual couples filing their tax return jointly to save a little cash, I think that's disingenuous on your part.

The debate is as much about legal protection as anything else. I guess the question is, do you object to gay marriage because it's "gay marriage" or do you object to homosexual couples having equal protection under the law as heterosexual couples. Even if that relationship is in the privacy of their own homes and has no effect on you personally.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I said in my very next line, CTLesq, "It can just refuse to give them legal protection." [/quote]

Maybe you missed the overall point - that without that legal protection such a "marriage" is meaningless.

You really maintain this is about a meaningless ceremony?

Thats what I thought.

[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']The debate is as much about legal protection as anything else. I guess the question is, do you object to gay marriage because it's "gay marriage" or do you object to homosexual couples having equal protection under the law as heterosexual couples. Even is that relationship is in the privacy of their own homes and has no effect on you personally.[/quote]

And don't get me started on an equal protection argument. Because, no offense, none of you are capable of having that discussion with me.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I said in my very next line, CTLesq, "It can just refuse to give them legal protection." [/quote]

Maybe you missed the overall point - that without that legal protection such a "marriage" is meaningless.

You really maintain this is about a meaningless ceremony?

Thats what I thought.

[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']The debate is as much about legal protection as anything else. I guess the question is, do you object to gay marriage because it's "gay marriage" or do you object to homosexual couples having equal protection under the law as heterosexual couples. Even is that relationship is in the privacy of their own homes and has no effect on you personally.[/quote]

And don't get me started on an equal protection argument. Because, no offense, none of you are capable of having that discussion with me.

CTL[/quote]

Let me just say, that if you view a homosexual couple who are religiously married as not being married, that's your right. I also stated that previously. Personally, I would acknowledge that marriage even if only religiously, just to be respectful. That's my opinion. We just have a difference of opinion. But you must admit that the state cannot deny a religious marriage ceremony. You may see it as meaningless. I may not. But the state can't deny or stop it. Also, I would argue it has some sentimental and emotional meaning in society.

But you're right. That this isn't just about religious protection, it's also about legal protection. I find it quite humourous that you state, "You really maintain this is about a meaningless ceremony?" And then you quote me two lines down where I had already stated, "The debate is as much about legal protection as anything else." You've done this three or four times now and I don't understand why you would ask questions on asnwers I have already given previously. And why exactly couldn't anyone be able to have a reeasonable discussion on equal protection with you? I don't assume that I have a better understanding than you. For all i know you could be a lawyer.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I find it quite humourous that you state, "You really maintain this is about a meaningless ceremony?" And then you quote me two lines down where I had already stated, "The debate is as much about legal protection as anything else." You've done this three or four times now and I don't understand why you would ask questions on asnwers I have already given previously. [/quote]

To show your absolute inconsistency.

Thats why.

CTL
 
[quote name='David85']Umm... Texas did not get rid of the "touching" laws the Supreme Court did, Texas fought against it and lost. But the new Right Wing Relgious Jackass filled Supreme Court should make it illegal again.[/quote]

I'm aware of that, my point was the anti sodomy laws no longer exist in texas.
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I said in my very next line, CTLesq, "It can just refuse to give them legal protection." [/quote]

Maybe you missed the overall point - that without that legal protection such a "marriage" is meaningless.

You really maintain this is about a meaningless ceremony?

Thats what I thought.

[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']The debate is as much about legal protection as anything else. I guess the question is, do you object to gay marriage because it's "gay marriage" or do you object to homosexual couples having equal protection under the law as heterosexual couples. Even is that relationship is in the privacy of their own homes and has no effect on you personally.[/quote]

And don't get me started on an equal protection argument. Because, no offense, none of you are capable of having that discussion with me.

CTL[/quote]

I have to laugh every time I see bigotted racist trash with a "Cartman" avatar. You DO know that Cartman is the one being lampooned, right?
 
I support Gay marriage. If two people who are truly in love want to show it to the public, why shouldn't they be given the right to? People who want to ban gay marriage say it's an attack on the instituion. However, look at Britney Spears joke marriage with her friend from High School. I find that a bigger attack on the instituion then gay marriage could ever be. But hey, that's just me...
 
yes I am very saddened that all 11 states were able to pass the laws banning any form of gay marriage. I am very much for gay rights and that's one reason I liked Howard Dean so much. It's amazing that no states want to even risk the chance of being "The Gay State" and risk allowing civil-unions. It's like they are afraid that if they don't lock out all the gays then the state may someday be swamped by gay people moving to the state.
 
We allow full marriage here, proud of it. This isn't a place like San Fransisco with a very flamboyantly gay atmosphere, we just don't care what you do behind closed doors, its none of our business, and its not our place to tell you who you can and can't marry. I'm not gay but I'm not threatened by people who are, and my concept of marriage is not threatened by gays. If I got married, I would be no less married than I would be if gays couldn't.

Unlike some states, we do not legislate our religious and ideological beliefs. I guess Republicans only like states rights when it helps them.
 
[quote name='bignick']Homosexuality is a disease.[/quote]
People like you are a disease on this country. Maybe when you reach a certain age, where you stop thinking that girls have cooties, you'll change your mind.

[quote name='Snake2715']The question I have is why do the "gay" people of this country want to get married under a religion that doesnt accept or allow it? I can see some ammendment to allow them the sought after benefits of marriage without actually being married.[/quote]
Which religion would that be? Last time I checked, the USA is not a religious theocracy like Iran is. Marriage is a function of the state. A religion has every right to deny marriage to gays if their religion does not allow it, within their own religion and within their own churches. Your religion does not have to allow interracial marriage, but that doesn't stop anyone outside of your religon and it doesn't stop the state. You don't need any religion to sanction your marriage in order to be married. They aren't sueing the Catholic Church to recognize their marriages, they simply want the state to recognize them legally.
 
[quote name='dafoomie'][quote name='bignick']Homosexuality is a disease.[/quote]
People like you are a disease on this country. Maybe when you reach a certain age, where you stop thinking that girls have cooties, you'll change your mind.
[/quote]

for chrissakes, how the hell did the sox get a smart fan like you? want to be my lawyer?

sad thing is- these bitch ass confederates swear to christ it's not cool to be married and gay, for fear of being gayed up- but these mofos have the nerve to go to OTHER countries and them how to run thier own shit.

sadder thing is- money grip loves them little ass twinny skin and bones coke fiends- being gay isnt cool but salivating and counting down the days until they turned 18 sure is. who's the real disease? or pervert? or "abomination"? if a man wants to stick in another man its cool, but if it's two broads- thats so effing hot.
 
Personally, I have no problems with homosexual marraiges. If they love each other, then who the hell can say they cannot get hitched?
 
[quote name='dental_regurgitation'][quote name='bignick']Homosexuality is a disease.[/quote]

That's pretty mean Nick.[/quote]

It's not mean, it's just wrong. But I suppose if you're as scientifically illiterate as BigNick would appear to be, you can label it whatever you want. All that does is expose how completely fucking ignorant you are.

*shrugs*

seppo
 
The sad thing is, we'll look look back at this in the future, and homophobia will basically be exactly the same as racism. Some people will have been right all along, some people will deny ever having been bigots, some people will have actually learned that bigotry is bad, and other people will be members of the KKK. I expect that when that time comes, people like BigNick will be members of the KKK-equivalent.

seppo
 
[quote name='helava']The sad thing is, we'll look look back at this in the future, and homophobia will basically be exactly the same as racism. Some people will have been right all along, some people will deny ever having been bigots, some people will have actually learned that bigotry is bad, and other people will be members of the KKK. I expect that when that time comes, people like BigNick will be members of the KKK-equivalent.

seppo[/quote]

The problem is, to most of the country homosexuality is considered a) a choice or b) a birth defect. Until that is changed it will be ok to hate.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='helava']The sad thing is, we'll look look back at this in the future, and homophobia will basically be exactly the same as racism. Some people will have been right all along, some people will deny ever having been bigots, some people will have actually learned that bigotry is bad, and other people will be members of the KKK. I expect that when that time comes, people like BigNick will be members of the KKK-equivalent.

seppo[/quote]

The problem is, to most of the country homosexuality is considered a) a choice or b) a birth defect. Until that is changed it will be ok to hate.[/quote]

The problem is the leaders that are hungry for power twisting the words of the crucified one for their own ends. The people I pity are those that fail to think for themselves, and the victims that they harm.

But that should be beside the point. The fact is, we live in a country that espouses a separation of church and state. Yet many fanatics don't understand that this ideal is one of the pillars that made America great.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='helava']The sad thing is, we'll look look back at this in the future, and homophobia will basically be exactly the same as racism. Some people will have been right all along, some people will deny ever having been bigots, some people will have actually learned that bigotry is bad, and other people will be members of the KKK. I expect that when that time comes, people like BigNick will be members of the KKK-equivalent.

seppo[/quote]

The problem is, to most of the country homosexuality is considered a) a choice or b) a birth defect. Until that is changed it will be ok to hate.[/quote]

The problem is the leaders that are hungry for power twisting the words of the crucified one for their own ends. The people I pity are those that fail to think for themselves, and the victims that they harm.

But that should be beside the point. The fact is, we live in a country that espouses a separation of church and state. Yet many fanatics don't understand that this ideal is one of the pillars that made America great.[/quote]

And yet it says "In God We Trust" on our money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top