constitutional amendment

[open mind]

bush wants to make an amendment banning gay marriage what do you think?
personally i've gotta say i don't think it should happen,the big argument against gay marriage is that it's against gods will,my thoughts are what happened to seperation between church and state?and to outlaw gay marriage because god doesn't like it is like assuming we all believe god doesn't like it?

[Justin_stacy]

Text of Bush announcement
Read president's call for constitutional marriage amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 24, 2004
12:00 p.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


Thank you. Please be seated.

Good morning.

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.

And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

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

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

Thank you very much.

[cantnokdahustle]

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. .

except that the overwhelming majority of this country is Fucking Stoopid!

President's before Lincoln: "who out there wants these here nigras to do all their shit for 'em.


85% of the country: "oh, oh, i do i do"

[Justin_stacy]

except that the overwhelming majority of this country is Fucking Stoopid!

or it could be the minority that is "fucking stoopid"......but either way thats all a matter of opinion..

[open mind]

the big stance against gay marriage is that it is an affront to god,since we believe in seperation of church and state i don't think the constitution should force beliefs onto people.
states can make laws saying that they will not recognize gay marriages from other states i don't see why this needs a constitutional amendment.

[mirtizzle]

why doesn't bush just come out and say "hey guys, let's all live in the 50's!"?

i don't even comprehend what people's issue is with gay marriage
guess what, they're still going to do each other if they're not married. and as i've said before.. and i'll say a million times.. why are they not entitled to legal union? they pay taxes, they vote, they are united states citizens. you'd think that in this day and age we'd be able to look beyond sexual preference but everytime i turn on the news, it feels like we're just falling backwards.

and i don't understand why there needs to be a constitutional amendment to this either.
horseshit.

[cantnokdahustle]

or it could be the minority that is "fucking stoopid"......but either way thats all a matter of opinion..
fair enough!
but sadly, not true.

[Justin_stacy]

fair enough!
but sadly, not true.

thats all a matter of opinion..
:approve:

[cantnokdahustle]

someone please correct me if im wrong (i know they will whether i am or not) but in our 200+ years as a country, i cant think of a constitutional amendment ( i think 17 in all since the bill of rights) that has had a regressive effect on this country (barring prohibition). All have been to grant rights, not take them away.

Justin......(god dammit there aren't any smily face things in quick reply), oh well catch you another time than. (well edit is a nice tool) :rolleyes:

[mirtizzle]

someone please correct me if im wrong (i know they will whether i am or not) but in our 200+ years as a country, i cant think of a constitutional amendment ( i think 17 in all since the bill of rights) that has had a regressive effect on this country (barring prohibition). All have been to grant rights, not take them away.

Justin......(god dammit there aren't any smily face things in quick reply), oh well catch you another time than. (well edit is a nice tool) :rolleyes:

exactly why i'm having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind the entire thing

i'd love for someone to explain to me why it's necessary.. come on with it

[cantnokdahustle]

i am for a constitutional amendment. But mine says that, "it is unlawful to discriminate against any person, because of their sexual preference, unless they are a pedophile (in which case you have every right to castrate this being).

[yeat182]

first, the constitutional amendment has nothing to do with god, or a religious view of marriage, its purpose is to let the people decide whether or not they wish to have a clear defenition of marriage. the majority has every right to have their voice heard as the minority.

[xnotedgex]

first, the constitutional amendment has nothing to do with god, or a religious view of marriage, its purpose is to let the people decide whether or not they wish to have a clear defenition of marriage. the majority has every right to have their voice heard as the minority.

however, the majority does not have the right to discriminate against a section of society based on who they fuck at night, neither does our govt...as has been stated...the majority of the country used to be opposed to emancipation of the slaves....doesnt mean they were right...and they are certainly not right in this case

the leave it to beaver story is nice and all but that was the past...society progresses unless a religious zealot of a president tries to hinder it...which is ludicrous

[yeat182]

however, the majority does not have the right to discriminate against a section of society based on who they fuck at night, neither does our govt...as has been stated...the majority of the country used to be opposed to emancipation of the slaves....doesnt mean they were right...and they are certainly not right in this case

the leave it to beaver story is nice and all but that was the past...society progresses unless a religious zealot of a president tries to hinder it...which is ludicrous

no one said they couldn't be gay, nor are they outlawing it. all they are saying is that the term "marriage" applies to men and women. and as has been stated several times, and ignored, gay people have the same rights as everyone else, i can't marry a guy either. my point isn't whether it is right or wrong, only that you can't expect everyone to give up their right to vote, so that the minority can have a right of their own. it doesn't make sense.

[jgirv17]

It's sad how discrimination will never leave this world.

[yeat182]

It's sad how discrimination will never leave this world.

aren't you discriminating against people who don't agree with gay marriage?

[open mind]

first, the constitutional amendment has nothing to do with god, or a religious view of marriage, its purpose is to let the people decide whether or not they wish to have a clear defenition of marriage. the majority has every right to have their voice heard as the minority.
if people didn't believe being gay was an affront to god no one would give two shits about gay marriage.

[mirtizzle]

aren't you discriminating against people who don't agree with gay marriage?

maybe we should go back to slavery? because that's discriminating against white folk who think black people should still work int the fields?

[open mind]

aren't you discriminating against people who don't agree with gay marriage?
discrimantion is not defined as feeling sad about ignorance in the world.

[yeat182]

maybe we should go back to slavery? because that's discriminating against white folk who think black people should still work int the fields?

the subjegation of an entire race, and the ability to marry a person of the same sex aren't comparable.

[mirtizzle]

my point was that you can't use reasoning like that. that's just stupid.

of course banning gay marriage is discrimination. we are a society based on equal rights aren't we? isn't that the american dream? why are we denying citizens of our own country the right to live in a legal union recognized by the government just because of their sexual preference? to be able to see their partner in the hospital, or be entitled to their estate when they pass away? all they want is legal security, not to desecrate the "sacred union" which, as i have mentioned before, isn't sacred anymore anyway.

this country has worse problems to deal with. why don't we focus on our education systems or the fact that we have so many children living in poverty instead of worrying about such silly so-called issues?

[yeat182]

my point was that you can't use reasoning like that. that's just stupid.

of course banning gay marriage is discrimination. we are a society based on equal rights aren't we? isn't that the american dream? why are we denying citizens of our own country the right to live in a legal union recognized by the government just because of their sexual preference? to be able to see their partner in the hospital, or be entitled to their estate when they pass away? all they want is legal security, not to desecrate the "sacred union" which, as i have mentioned before, isn't sacred anymore anyway.

this country has worse problems to deal with. why don't we focus on our education systems or the fact that we have so many children living in poverty instead of worrying about such silly so-called issues?

they have the same rights, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want, just like heterosexuals. and for the hundreth time, my point isn't whether it is right or wrong, but that the people get a say in it...something that many are trying to deny the populace.

[open mind]

they have the same rights, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want, just like heterosexuals. and for the hundreth time, my point isn't whether it is right or wrong, but that the people get a say in it...something that many are trying to deny the populace.
i think a constitutional amendment silences alot of voices and won't help with people having a say.

[xnotedgex]

they have the same rights, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want, just like heterosexuals. and for the hundreth time, my point isn't whether it is right or wrong, but that the people get a say in it...something that many are trying to deny the populace.

what an ignorant statement...they can can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want...so because they're not straight, they're just not exercising their full rights? how truly ignorant is that

and the populace should not get a say in marriage...marriage is between 2 people...not 2 people and the populace...i don't give a shit what everyone is gonna think when i get married....why should gay people have to deal with that?

and marriage is not sacred!! marriage did not originate out of religious beliefs...using that as an excuse is also ignorant (not pointed at you yeat, pointed at the populace)

[yeat182]

what an ignorant statement...they can can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want...so because they're not straight, they're just not exercising their full rights? how truly ignorant is that

and the populace should not get a say in marriage...marriage is between 2 people...not 2 people and the populace...i don't give a shit what everyone is gonna think when i get married....why should gay people have to deal with that?

and marriage is not sacred!! marriage did not originate out of religious beliefs...using that as an excuse is also ignorant (not pointed at you yeat, pointed at the populace)

first, its true, whether you want to believe it or not, or wish to claim it as ignorant because you don't agree with it...

second, the constitution applies to every american, and there for any change in it should have the input of every american.

third, as for the marriage is not sacred arguement, you are right, but there is also 3000 years of tradition that states marriage is between man and woman...there hasn't been any real historical record of gay "marriage". so what is the point of changing 3000 years of tradition? (playing devils advocate)

[xnotedgex]

first, its true, whether you want to believe it or not, or wish to claim it as ignorant because you don't agree with it...

second, the constitution applies to every american, and there for any change in it should have the input of every american.

third, as for the marriage is not sacred arguement, you are right, but there is also 3000 years of tradition that states marriage is between man and woman...there hasn't been any real historical record of gay "marriage". so what is the point of changing 3000 years of tradition? (playing devils advocate)

its not true...gay people dont have the right to marry whoever they choose, as straight people do

second....the constitution stipulates seperation of church and state, the argument being presented is that marriage is a sacred and religious institution...therefore, the govt should have no say in what constitutes marriage if we're going by the explanation of the bush administration

third...tradition means shit...if we always stayed true to tradition, slavery would still be a part of our society...thank god traditions can be broken right

[cantnokdahustle]

of course gay marriage is not comparable to slavery. the only bridge between them is the mind set of the people. the populace has been wrong before and will continue to be.

[UndefinedBoy]

Alright.

First off, why do people care so much? Marriage is and always will be between 2 people, so who is the populace to tell them how to live their lives? If it doesn't affect you, then don't fight it. It has nothing to do with you. And its been said before about the separation of church and state, so the administration should have no voice in this. What pisses me off about his speech is how he acts as though marriage is under attack. Marriage lost and sanctity it has when someone decided it's ok for Elvis impersonators to marry drunk people in Las Vegas. That doesn't seem so sacred to me.

And to make a point about tradition, here's a passage from Tales of a Punk Rock Nothing by Abram Shalom Himselstein and Jamie Schweser:

"...laws are made by humans, who make mistakes. The law of the land is not sacred, and is often immoral. It was recently legal to own, buy, and sell other human beings. It was recently illegal to purchase alcohol, illegal to touch the person you love in certain ways, illegal to vote if you were a woman or a person of color or without property."

This is just a way of writing discrimination into the Constition. And yeat, I'd think you were better than trying to say this is discriminating against opponents of gay marriage...you know that's bullshit.

[sweetsugar]

I haven't posted here in a while, but I needed to say this, cause I know how all you people are and I'll probably get flamed to hell and back for this, but I don't care.
I COMPLETELY disagree with same sex "Marriage". Marriage traditionally is a christian term used to describe the joining of Man and Woman as one. Seeing as how homosexuality is considered to be a sin and an abomination to Jesus Christ, allowing same sex "marriage" would be taking away from the Christian religion and would be very offensive to all true Christians. I don't have a problem with a "civil union" or something of the sort, so that homosexuals are allowed the same rights as a married couple, but it can not be termed "marriage". Doing so would be completely wrong.

Another point, this nation and the constitution was founded using the Bible and Christian principles, so those of you who want to argue, take that into consideration.

I hold nothing against homosexuals or legal unions, you just can't call it marriage.

[sweetsugar]

if people didn't believe being gay was an affront to god no one would give two shits about gay marriage.

Beeing gay is an affront to the Christian God. That's one of the reasons he destroyed Sodom and the G word....however you spell it.

[cantnokdahustle]

I'll probably get flamed to hell and back for this.


yes, yes you will. I'll start.


If you think marriage is a religious right, than why are (the christians) not trying to ban atheists from marrying.
Everyone gets married, it has been a tradition throughout civilization.

[Justin_stacy]

Alright.

First off, why do people care so much? Marriage is and always will be between 2 people, ?.

That’s not true at all, if you allow one alternative lifestyle to marry, your going to have to allow all of them to marry......or face similar charges of discrimination....that means polygamist, blood relatives, groups..etc…..

[cantnokdahustle]

That’s not true at all, if you allow one alternative lifestyle to marry, your going to have to allow all of them to marry......or face similar charges of discrimination....that means polygamist, blood relatives, groups..etc…..
It is amazing how you (I) can lose respect for someone so very very fast.

God dammit they already let other lifestyles marry.
Atheists
transvestites
blood relatives (arkansas) (this one (claim) was made with no reference to legal sources)


letting two people whom love each other marry is not the same as letting mass marriage happen, and anyone who draws the comparison is a fucking moron.
2 people is not 3orgreater

[Justin_stacy]

It is amazing how you (I) can lose respect for someone so very very fast.

God dammit they already let other lifestyles marry.
Atheists
transvestites
blood relatives (arkansas) (this one (claim) was made with no reference to legal sources)


letting two people whom love each other marry is not the same as letting mass marriage happen, and anyone who draws the comparison is a fucking moron.
2 people is not 3orgreater

Being atheist is not any different from being apart of any religious group, transvestites can only marry in the natural definition of the word, and I know this will shock you, but you can't marry your sister even in Arkansas.....

As for the rest there is no difference.... how can you say it is not up to the "populace to decide who can marry”, but then bar(discriminate) polygamist from marring?


....oh and its amazing that i never asked for your respect...... ;)

[yeat182]

its not true...gay people dont have the right to marry whoever they choose, as straight people do

second....the constitution stipulates seperation of church and state, the argument being presented is that marriage is a sacred and religious institution...therefore, the govt should have no say in what constitutes marriage if we're going by the explanation of the bush administration

third...tradition means shit...if we always stayed true to tradition, slavery would still be a part of our society...thank god traditions can be broken right


1. a straight man cannot marry another man, just as a homosexual man cannot marry anotherman.

2. marriage, as i believe you've stated, is not a religious issue, so seperation of church and state doesn't enter in to it...it is a traditional issue.

again, i'm not saying what is right or wrong, i'm just throwing arguements out there. the only problem i have is with the denial of rights under the guise of demanding rights.

[mirtizzle]

the concept of marriage is relative to how you're brought up, if you're brought up in a devout christian home of course you'd probably have the notion that marriage is a christian concept binding a man and a woman

however, out here in the real world... marriage is a legal union, simply put. it entitles couples to certain rights. in a lot of places, it's nothing but a business relationship.


we live in a country where we rely on a limited government to keep our civil liberties and rights protected. i don't believe in giving the government the power to tell who someone can and can't marry, based on their sexual preference..

[hXc_pwnage]

If being gay was so bad, why would God even allow it? Like the whole Adam and Eve story, he would just punish us somehow. Seperation of church and state should play a role in here. If you haven't noticed, over half of Bush's speakers on banning gay marriage have been somehow related to Christianity. Like the others said, tradition plays no part. Also, isn't it discrimination? Are gays any less of people than we are? No. So why should they have one less right? Also, even if you don't agree with gay marriage, why would you make a constitutioanl amendment to ban it? That is going way to far. I don't really agree with marriage anyways...unless you have children or are planning on having them. What is so wrong with being gay anyways? So they prefer the same sex, it isn't a big deal. Are they forcing you to know? Are they asking you to get in their lives? Do they force you to watch them have sex? No. There are things way more important anyways. What about our enviroment? What about the 8% of women who are carrying children with mercury in them? What about education? What about our troops? What about bin Laden? What about foreign relations? What about NAFTA and WTO? What about equality?

[yeat182]

It is amazing how you (I) can lose respect for someone so very very fast.

God dammit they already let other lifestyles marry.
Atheists
transvestites
blood relatives (arkansas) (this one (claim) was made with no reference to legal sources)


letting two people whom love each other marry is not the same as letting mass marriage happen, and anyone who draws the comparison is a fucking moron.
2 people is not 3orgreater

he wasn't refering to the church, he was refering to those that claim it isn't the buisness of the citizens. and mass marriage isn't any different because how can you claim "who's to say marriage is only between a man and a woman" and then turn around and say "a marriage is only between 2 people"....its contradictory, since there is no authority on the matter other than the government, which is trying to come up with a defenition. and that defention will have to protect against pedophilia, polygamy, etc. etc...

[Justin_stacy]

If you haven't noticed, over half of Bush's speakers on banning gay marriage have been somehow related to Christianity. ?

or just about every other religion on the planet...

[yeat182]

If being gay was so bad, why would God even allow it?

because god is a fraud.

[hXc_pwnage]

So then Christianity is a fraud. Then that means their beliefs against gay marriage is a fraud. So then Bush is wrong.

[hXc_pwnage]

or just about every other religion on the planet...
What religions?

I bet over half of them revolve around the belief in God, which in turn means they would automaticly (sp) be biased on gay marriage. They are all, though, somehow related to the belief in God. His sources are all biased.

[yeat182]

So then Christianity is a fraud. Then that means their beliefs against gay marriage is a fraud. So then Bush is wrong.

someone could just as easily say that homosexuals are wrong...everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it. for people that cry discrimination and demand tolerance, they seldom seem to practice it.

[Justin_stacy]

So then Christianity is a fraud. Then that means their beliefs against gay marriage is a fraud. So then Bush is wrong.

that would be true....only if your total stance against alternative marriages was religious based....

[Justin_stacy]

What religions?

I bet over half of them revolve around the belief in God, which in turn means they would automaticly (sp) be biased on gay marriage. They are all, though, somehow related to the belief in God. His sources are all biased.


all forms of christian faith along with all forms of islam, which are the two biggest forms of religion....

-reword the rest, would ya-

[hXc_pwnage]

someone could just as easily say that homosexuals are wrong...everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it. for people that cry discrimination and demand tolerance, they seldom seem to practice it.
I was just working off of what you said. But do homosexuals have feelings? Are they living? Do they have rights? Yes. Is there any direct proof of the existence of God? Is he living and breathing? No. Discrimination has many levels. Everyone discriminates in someway. But once you go against a whole race or group of people (i.e. gays, women, men, etc.) it is much bigger. You are totaly taking away a right that they have. It's bad enough that they are outcasted by many in society, but now they are being 'shooed off' (in a sense) by the government?

[yeat182]

I was just working off of what you said. But do homosexuals have feelings? Are they living? Do they have rights? Yes. Is there any direct proof of the existence of God? Is he living and breathing? No. Discrimination has many levels. Everyone discriminates in someway. But once you go against a whole race or group of people (i.e. gays, women, men, etc.) it is much bigger. You are totaly taking away a right that they have. It's bad enough that they are outcasted by many in society, but now they are being 'shooed off' (in a sense) by the government?

but they want to totally take away everyone's right in order for them to get their own right...let the people vote, that is why we are a country in the first place after all.

[hXc_pwnage]

all forms of christian faith along with all forms of islam, which are the two biggest forms of religion....

-reword the rest, would ya-
Christianity and Islam both formulate around the belief in God (or Allah.) Therefor, they would both most likely be against gay marriages. That means that they have been raised into that belief and are biased in that regard. Do you really think they care what people like I think?

[cantnokdahustle]

Being atheist is not any different from being apart of any religious group, transvestites can only marry in the natural definition of the word

except that it is a direct contradiction of religion. and i dont even know where to go with the second part of that, it is just rediculous, they are still transvestites.

[hXc_pwnage]

but they want to totally take away everyone's right in order for them to get their own right...let the people vote, that is why we are a country in the first place after all.
How are they totaly taking away everyone else's right? People against gay marriages are taking away their right, which isn't fair. Sure, let the people vote...but we aren't. It'll be congress and the senate. The people don't have a voice in this, only congress, the senate, Bush, and his goons.

[cantnokdahustle]

and mass marriage isn't any different because how can you claim "who's to say marriage is only between a man and a woman" and then turn around and say "a marriage is only between 2 people"....its contradictory, since there is no authority on the matter other than the government, which is trying to come up with a defenition. and that defention will have to protect against pedophilia, polygamy, etc. etc...

yes it is contradictory, i will not deny that. everything is a contradiction.

[Justin_stacy]

Christianity and Islam both formulate around the belief in God (or Allah.) Therefor, they would both most likely be against gay marriages. That means that they have been raised into that belief and are biased in that regard. Do you really think they care what people like I think?

lets say we agree and disagree.......i would be opposed to a constitutional amendmetn based on a religious belief, but from a non-religious stand point i see a need for it so long as it leaves an opening for state issued "civil unions"......

[hXc_pwnage]

lets say we agree and disagree.......i would be opposed to a constitutional amendmetn based on a religious belief, but from a non-religious stand point i see a need for it so long as it leaves an opening for state issued "civil unions"......
I don't see a need for an amendment banning it. Leaving it up to the states, maybe. How about not doing anything? Let things be. It isn't that important of an issue.

[Justin_stacy]

except that it is a direct contradiction of religion. and i dont even know where to go with the second part of that, it is just rediculous, they are still transvestites.

going into this is beyond this topic, all i can say is that it is not a type of alternative lifestyle, any more then any religion would be......and transvestite can only marry in the natural definintion of the word ie. man/womyn....

[hXc_pwnage]

I also don't see how gay marriages weaken society? That is a huge homophobic statement by Bush.

[Justin_stacy]

I don't see a need for an amendment banning it. Leaving it up to the states, maybe. How about not doing anything? Let things be. It isn't that important of an issue.
1. state laws can be over turned by activitist judges (Mass) and can be ignored by criminal mayors (San Fran)...
2. why don't you say that to those in San Fran and Mass that are forcing the issue, Bush in't the one making this an issue...
3. to some people the destruction of the definintion of marriage is an important issue, but like everything its all a matter of opinion...

[hXc_pwnage]

Here, I am going to post a lot of what Bush said. If you don't find this stupid, ignorant, and homophobic...well there may not be hope:

“If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.”

“America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.”

And as Ted Kennedy said, "Bush will go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution."

[hXc_pwnage]

1. state laws can be over turned by activitist judges (Mass) and can be ignored by criminal mayors (San Fran)...
2. why don't you say that to those in San Fran and Mass that are forcing the issue, Bush in't the one making this an issue...
3. to some people the destruction of the definintion of marriage is an important issue, but like everything its all a matter of opinion...
You know everything happening is because of what Bush is trying to do. If he wasn't being such a homophobic asshole, everything would be ok.

How is gay marriage a DESTRUCTION of the definition of marriage? I'm sorry, but that is just a biased/ignorant statement.

[OnMyOwn]

Well, in light of this whole debate and situation I figured I might as well share my story and my opinion.

I was born into a Christian home, raised as a strong Christian and went to church almost every Sunday until I was 18 (although there were days I would have rather just slept). I wouldn't necessarily call myself a strong Christian because I probably don't practice the religion as much as I should, but I believe in God and what not and for most of my life I was in the belief that homosexuality was wrong, mostly based on the beliefs I was taught as a child from my parents and from the church. About a year and a half ago something changed, however. I went to college and what not and met one of the best friends of my llfe who also happened to be my roommate. Some strange stuff started happening and I began getting these feelings on much more then just a friendly level for her. It was all pretty strange and I tried to fight it as much as I could since anything I had been taught about feeling that way about someone of the same sex was wrong, but it was too strong to fight. It ends up that she was feeling the same way towards me, and granted neither one of us ever felt that way for someone of the same sex before in our lives and never really thought about it before. Everything I once believed in about homosexuality got flipped upside down and turned inside out. I wasn't going to discriminate on those who were homosexuals before, but I just didn't believe it was right. Now my beliefs have completely changed. Although there is the obvious differences between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship, there's one common denominator in my mind that matters more then anything, and that's the love between two individuals. Isn't that was a relationship is really based on? isn't that what marriage is based on? A love and understand that those two individuals love each other so much that they want to spend the rest of their life together?

I find this whole consititutional amendment on banning gay marriages to be completely ridiculous and assanine. I don't see how anyone can take that right of marriage away from a person, what ever their sexual preference may be. I know in my heart that I could marry this girl and the fact that someone who has no idea how this feels because they've never been put in this situation before pisses me the fuck off. How can I not be allowed that right just the same as anyone else? Am I not human? I was infuriated when I watched the president's speech and before this situation happened to me I'd frankly probably wouldn't have cared all that much. We're human, why can we not have that right as well? I know they're trying to keep marriage sacred and what not...but when you see the divorce rate today so incredibly high, how sacred is it anymore? People just throw it around like it's no big deal anymore, and frankly to me seem to make a mocery (sp?) of a marriage. Why do idiots like this have a right to get married and I don't because I love someone of the same sex? It just doesn't seem right to me in my eyes. I don't think anyone can truly understand what it feels like until they are placed in this situation. I had no desire to vote this year whatsoever, but after seeing that speech and seeing President Bush's plans for my future, I don't want someone like that running my life.

I'm really not sure what to say and I often fumble with my words when attempting to explain something I feel very strongly for so I'm sorry if what I've said confuses anyone or I seemed entirely too vague. Just thought I'd share the opinion of someone who's life would be affected by this fucked up constitutional amendment.

[Justin_stacy]

You know everything happening is because of what Bush is trying to do. If he wasn't being such a homophobic asshole, everything would be ok.

How is gay marriage a DESTRUCTION of the definition of marriage? I'm sorry, but that is just a biased/ignorant statement.

To believe that you have to completely overlook ever thing that Gavin Newsom and the Mass. Supreme Court have done.......

And redefining marriage is destructive because it open the institution up to any and every form of alternative lifestyle, and that is not a good thing....but unlike you, I will refrain from insulting you because of your beliefs.... :shock:

[hXc_pwnage]

To believe that you have to completely overlook ever thing that Gavin Newsom and the Mass. Supreme Court have done.......

And redefining marriage is destructive because it open the institution up to any and every form of alternative lifestyle, and that is not a good thing....but unlike you, I will refrain from insulting you because of your beliefs.... :shock:
Truly, I haven't fully looked into this. So I can say that I am not truly sure about Gavin Newsom and the Mass. Supreme Court, so I will refrain from that in fear of making an idiotic statement. But they believed what Bush was trying to do was wrong, and so they did what they felt they needed to do.

Marriage is about love. Sure, you and I may not agree with the people getting married, but if they truly love eachother, I believe they should be allowed to be married. You may say there would be too many marriages/divorces, but aren't there a lot already? I wouldn't be suprised if over half of the U.S. population over the age of 20 have been married and divorced atleast once. Also, I didn't mean to insult you personaly. It's just that I believe that statement is far from fact.

:p

[cantnokdahustle]

going into this is beyond this topic, all i can say is that it is not a type of alternative lifestyle, any more then any religion would be......and transvestite can only marry in the natural definintion of the word ie. man/womyn....

we do not deny the right to marry to those born neither female or male. yes, i'm talking about hermaphrodites, who make up 2% of the population.

if you don't mind me asking, what is your definition of an Alternative Lifestyle.

[Justin_stacy]

But they believed what Bush was trying to do was wrong, and so they did what they felt they needed to do.


First they did this before Bush took a stand on the amendment issue......and your comment could be reversed just as easily too... "bush believed what they did was wrong and so he did what he felt was needed".....and in one case, gavin's, the act conducted is not only wrong, but criminal...

[Justin_stacy]

. Also, I didn't mean to insult you personaly. It's just that I believe that statement is far from fact.
:p

if you insult everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions.....your not going to have many friend....
:approve:

(i'm just kidding with ya.)

[cantnokdahustle]

Well, in light of this whole debate and situation I figured I might as well share my story and my opinion.

I was born into a Christian home, raised as a strong Christian and went to church almost every Sunday until I was 18 (although there were days I would have rather just slept). I wouldn't necessarily call myself a strong Christian because I probably don't practice the religion as much as I should, but I believe in God and what not and for most of my life I was in the belief that homosexuality was wrong, mostly based on the beliefs I was taught as a child from my parents and from the church. About a year and a half ago something changed, however. I went to college and what not and met one of the best friends of my llfe who also happened to be my roommate. Some strange stuff started happening and I began getting these feelings on much more then just a friendly level for her. It was all pretty strange and I tried to fight it as much as I could since anything I had been taught about feeling that way about someone of the same sex was wrong, but it was too strong to fight. It ends up that she was feeling the same way towards me, and granted neither one of us ever felt that way for someone of the same sex before in our lives and never really thought about it before. Everything I once believed in about homosexuality got flipped upside down and turned inside out. I wasn't going to discriminate on those who were homosexuals before, but I just didn't believe it was right. Now my beliefs have completely changed. Although there is the obvious differences between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship, there's one common denominator in my mind that matters more then anything, and that's the love between two individuals. Isn't that was a relationship is really based on? isn't that what marriage is based on? A love and understand that those two individuals love each other so much that they want to spend the rest of their life together?

I find this whole consititutional amendment on banning gay marriages to be completely ridiculous and assanine. I don't see how anyone can take that right of marriage away from a person, what ever their sexual preference may be. I know in my heart that I could marry this girl and the fact that someone who has no idea how this feels because they've never been put in this situation before pisses me the fuck off. How can I not be allowed that right just the same as anyone else? Am I not human? I was infuriated when I watched the president's speech and before this situation happened to me I'd frankly probably wouldn't have cared all that much. We're human, why can we not have that right as well? I know they're trying to keep marriage sacred and what not...but when you see the divorce rate today so incredibly high, how sacred is it anymore? People just throw it around like it's no big deal anymore, and frankly to me seem to make a mocery (sp?) of a marriage. Why do idiots like this have a right to get married and I don't because I love someone of the same sex? It just doesn't seem right to me in my eyes. I don't think anyone can truly understand what it feels like until they are placed in this situation. I had no desire to vote this year whatsoever, but after seeing that speech and seeing President Bush's plans for my future, I don't want someone like that running my life.

I'm really not sure what to say and I often fumble with my words when attempting to explain something I feel very strongly for so I'm sorry if what I've said confuses anyone or I seemed entirely too vague. Just thought I'd share the opinion of someone who's life would be affected by this fucked up constitutional amendment.
Thank You

[Justin_stacy]

we do not deny the right to marry to those born neither female or male. yes, i'm talking about hermaphrodites, who make up 2% of the population.
.

what i can find from a quick search is that it actually happens in 1 in 14,000 births...or .0000714%....not 2%

[cantnokdahustle]

2% was quoted in this week's Time magazine.

[Justin_stacy]

2% was quoted in this week's Time magazine.


No one knows how many transgendered people exist, but at least 25,000 Americans have undergone sex-reassignment surgery, and the dozen or so North American doctors who perform it have long waiting lists. Psychologists say "gender-identity disorder" occurs in at least 2% of children; they experience discomfort with their assigned gender and may experiment with gender roles

[hXc_pwnage]

First they did this before Bush took a stand on the amendment issue......and your comment could be reversed just as easily too... "bush believed what they did was wrong and so he did what he felt was needed".....and in one case, gavin's, the act conducted is not only wrong, but criminal...
Well, this is how I see it. Asshole...I mean Bush...has been against gay marriage from the start (personally I think he is a homophobe, which is just down-right horrible.) So, sure the action was delayed, but they did it knowing Bush wanted to do something about it. Sure, it may be criminal, but it can, in a stretched out sense, be called a protest. They used the marriage as a protest to Bush's...assholeishness (wow, new word.)

Yes, I know the last sentence is an opinion, but oh well.

Also, doesn't God teach you to love everyone? What about the Golden Rule? Do you want to not be allowed to be married? We might as well stop interracial marriages...those could pull down society. While we are at it, let's stop the 40+ age difference marriages. Hell, we should make people be atleast 35!

See? You can't put a limit on it...marriage is love, and love happens in many forms.

:monkey: <3 :vader:

[BrandNew20]

Allowing Gay Marriage wouldn't open up the doors for all alternative lifestyles because those alternative lifestyles are still considered illegal by law...You still won't be able to marry your sister, have more than one wife/husband/partner, or be a pedophile. Homosexuality is perfectly legal, Sodomy laws having been repealed, and homosexuals are law abiding citizens and part of society, don't they deserve every right that all other citizens have?

[hXc_pwnage]

Allowing Gay Marriage wouldn't open up the doors for all alternative lifestyles because those alternative lifestyles are still considered illegal by law...You still won't be able to marry your sister, have more than one wife/husband/partner, or be a pedophile. Homosexuality is perfectly legal, Sodomy laws having been repealed, and homosexuals are law abiding citizens and part of society, don't they deserve every right that all other citizens have?
I like you.

[yeat182]

How are they totaly taking away everyone else's right? People against gay marriages are taking away their right, which isn't fair. Sure, let the people vote...but we aren't. It'll be congress and the senate. The people don't have a voice in this, only congress, the senate, Bush, and his goons.


so, i take it you haven't followed the situation in massachusetts? there is talk of putting it to a referendum, which would mean the people would get to vote, as they should. and as for bush's proposed ammendment, after it is passed by congress the amendment would go to the states for ratification, either by the legislature, or by a constitutional convention, made up of people voted to the position, so again the people would get a say, in a manner of speaking.

[yeat182]

Allowing Gay Marriage wouldn't open up the doors for all alternative lifestyles because those alternative lifestyles are still considered illegal by law...You still won't be able to marry your sister, have more than one wife/husband/partner, or be a pedophile. Homosexuality is perfectly legal, Sodomy laws having been repealed, and homosexuals are law abiding citizens and part of society, don't they deserve every right that all other citizens have?


how can you say that homosexuality is accepted and these other lifestyles are not? that is the whole point. if the government doesn't have the right to keep people from getting married, then how can you say that polygamist won't be allowed to get married?

[hXc_pwnage]

so, i take it you haven't followed the situation in massachusetts? there is talk of putting it to a referendum, which would mean the people would get to vote, as they should. and as for bush's proposed ammendment, after it is passed by congress the amendment would go to the states for ratification, either by the legislature, or by a constitutional convention, made up of people voted to the position, so again the people would get a say, in a manner of speaking.
Yeah, I haven't really followed Massachusetts. I know just the main point of the ordeal and a little on San Fran. (So if I say something that is totaly untrue, forgive me.) Yes, in a sense they do get a vote, but not directly. What about all the people that didn't vote those people into the position? What if they voted for someone else? Their voice isn't being heard. Isn't democracy about everyone being heard? This is what I've learned, if not than correct me. But from the knowledge I've gained, we seem more of a republic than a democracy. I really think that everyone should get a say in this, if they wish.

[hXc_pwnage]

how can you say that homosexuality is accepted and these other lifestyles are not? that is the whole point. if the government doesn't have the right to keep people from getting married, then how can you say that polygamist won't be allowed to get married?
He's more saying that just because gay marriages wouldn't be banned (hypotheticly speaking), why would all the others have to be unbanned? The others actually are bad, whereas homosexuality isn't. It's only bad to the overly Christian mind. Don't totaly take this wrong...but I believe that religion is a key to close minded-ness.

[BrandNew20]

By allowing homosexuals to marry you are giving them the rights of every other citizen within the United States, by allowing for Polygamy you would be giving them rights that not everyone else has(the right to marry more than 1 person). That is the difference.

[yeat182]

He's more saying that just because gay marriages wouldn't be banned (hypotheticly speaking), why would all the others have to be unbanned? The others actually are bad, whereas homosexuality isn't. It's only bad to the overly Christian mind. Don't totaly take this wrong...but I believe that religion is a key to close minded-ness.

well, yeah, to you and me they are wrong, but the people that practice it, they don't see it as wrong, it is how they choose to live their life. and i would agree with you and the religious point as well, but they are still entitled to their opinion.

[yeat182]

By allowing homosexuals to marry you are giving them the rights of every other citizen within the United States, by allowing for Polygamy you would be giving them rights that not everyone else has(the right to marry more than 1 person). That is the difference.

homosexuals have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals...they have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

[open mind]

homosexuals have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals...they have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
your tottally ignoring the issue.

[xnotedgex]

they have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

that's the point....they are being denied the right to marry who they choose....no heterosexual is denied the right to marry who they choose (exception of polygamy, incest) are they?

and putting forth the idea that all alternative lifestyles would be allowed to seek marriage if gay marriage is approved shows no use of logic....incest is a practice which is physically destructive (go read up on mutations)...there is no chance that a law would be passed to legalize such a destructive practice...pedophilia would never gain passage because it also a destructive practice...the bodies of children are unable to deal with the physical demands put on by physical relationships...i dont really see anything inherently wrong with polygamy...it goes against what marriage SHOULD be which is the love between 2 people...the problem with polygamy in the past has been the subjugation of women to their husbands...being forced to marry, often at young ages...if some kooks in utah wanna marry 5 people or be married to someone who has 5 other wives, thats their decision, however fucked up it might be

[xnotedgex]

I haven't posted here in a while, but I needed to say this, cause I know how all you people are and I'll probably get flamed to hell and back for this, but I don't care.
I COMPLETELY disagree with same sex "Marriage". Marriage traditionally is a christian term used to describe the joining of Man and Woman as one. Seeing as how homosexuality is considered to be a sin and an abomination to Jesus Christ, allowing same sex "marriage" would be taking away from the Christian religion and would be very offensive to all true Christians. I don't have a problem with a "civil union" or something of the sort, so that homosexuals are allowed the same rights as a married couple, but it can not be termed "marriage". Doing so would be completely wrong.

Another point, this nation and the constitution was founded using the Bible and Christian principles, so those of you who want to argue, take that into consideration.

I hold nothing against homosexuals or legal unions, you just can't call it marriage.

marriage is a christian term only to christians...

this nation and the constitution operate under the law of seperation of church and state...which means christian practices mean shit (or should mean shit)

[xnotedgex]

1. a straight man cannot marry another man, just as a homosexual man cannot marry anotherman.

2. marriage, as i believe you've stated, is not a religious issue, so seperation of church and state doesn't enter in to it...it is a traditional issue.

again, i'm not saying what is right or wrong, i'm just throwing arguements out there. the only problem i have is with the denial of rights under the guise of demanding rights.

1. if a man chose to marry another man, he would not be straight, he would be homosexual...argument makes no sense

2. i was speaking to the point of view of bush and his administration's religious arguments...bush's arguments go against seperation of church and state....i think its been established that traditions are broken many times for the better....there was a band on intteracial marriages up until the 50's or 60's (not quite sure of the exact date)...would you argue that this ban should still be in place because it upholds tradition?

[yeat182]

that's the point....they are being denied the right to marry who they choose....no heterosexual is denied the right to marry who they choose (exception of polygamy, incest) are they?

but who is to say that polygamist, pedophiles or family members can't marry who they want to?

and putting forth the idea that all alternative lifestyles would be allowed to seek marriage if gay marriage is approved shows no use of logic....incest is a practice which is physically destructive (go read up on mutations)...

that has nothing to do with marriage, that has to do with reproduction, and as i'm sure you are well aware, the two aren't bound together, they don't need to be legally married to have sex, and those who are legally married aren't bound to reproduce (i.e. homosexuals)

pedophilia would never gain passage because it also a destructive practice...the bodies of children are unable to deal with the physical demands put on by physical relationships...

again, you're are talking about sex, not marriage.

[xnotedgex]

but who is to say that polygamist, pedophiles or family members can't marry who they want to?



that has nothing to do with marriage, that has to do with reproduction, and as i'm sure you are well aware, the two aren't bound together, they don't need to be legally married to have sex, and those who are legally married aren't bound to reproduce (i.e. homosexuals)



again, you're are talking about sex, not marriage.

sex is the most important aspect of those relationships which render them illegal....obviously there is a connection between marriage and sex...clearly, sex occurs or has occurred in every marriage in the entire world...i doubt you'd disagree with that

[cantnokdahustle]

sex is the most important aspect of those relationships which render them illegal....obviously there is a connection between marriage and sex...clearly, sex occurs or has occurred in every marriage in the entire world...i doubt you'd disagree with that

to elaborate....(i hope notstraightedge does'nt mind)

in the (alternative relationships) one of the parties of the agreement (marriage) is at a much higher risk of being hurt than is the case with heterosexual and homosexual marriage. That is why we can back gay marriage and no the other. obviously morals are involved (yes, i have morals, and dont give me shit, atheists can have morals too), no one wants children to get hurt, nor do we want women or men to be objectified by a polygamist relationship.

[yeat182]

to elaborate....(i hope notstraightedge does'nt mind)

in the (alternative relationships) one of the parties of the agreement (marriage) is at a much higher risk of being hurt than is the case with heterosexual and homosexual marriage. That is why we can back gay marriage and no the other. obviously morals are involved (yes, i have morals, and dont give me shit, atheists can have morals too), no one wants children to get hurt, nor do we want women or men to be objectified by a polygamist relationship.


everyone who is married is at risk of getting hurt...

[cantnokdahustle]

everyone who is married is at risk of getting hurt...
obviously....
that position can go a couple ways.
1) fuck marriage. outlaw it.
2)reduce the risk factor. make it between two consenting adults, just like our sex laws (recently)
3)let everyone get married (i.e. Polygamists and pedophiles etc.) which i believe we have a concensus on, that we wish not for that to happen.

[hXc_pwnage]

I don't see how letting gays marry forces us to let pedophiles, polygomists, and incestous people marry. Pedophilia can harm the kid, with or without sex. Also, the child would be too naive to know what they are doing, or smart enough to know it is wrong. Polygomy (sp) is just demeaning to the women. Incest involves blood relatives, which is moraly wrong. Gay marriage isn't demeaning to people, doesn't harm the other, and is only moraly wrong to the overly religous people. Like others have said, marriage isn't sacred or religous. It is just the binding of two people who both want it. They know what they are getting into. They both love eachother, as much or more than straight couples. Is it going to hurt you or Bush that gay couples can marry? No. He could use it to his advantage...marriage costs money. That means that money goes into the U.S. which could help lower the debt.

All in all, there are really only two people that aren't for gay marriage: religous people and homophobes.

[venus/bacchus]

I don't see how letting gays marry forces us to let pedophiles, polygomists, and incestous people marry. Pedophilia can harm the kid, with or without sex. Also, the child would be too naive to know what they are doing, or smart enough to know it is wrong. Polygomy (sp) is just demeaning to the women. Incest involves blood relatives, which is moraly wrong. Gay marriage isn't demeaning to people, doesn't harm the other, and is only moraly wrong to the overly religous people. Like others have said, marriage isn't sacred or religous. It is just the binding of two people who both want it. They know what they are getting into. They both love eachother, as much or more than straight couples. Is it going to hurt you or Bush that gay couples can marry? No. He could use it to his advantage...marriage costs money. That means that money goes into the U.S. which could help lower the debt.

All in all, there are really only two people that aren't for gay marriage: religous people and homophobes.
Along the lines of pedophilia, if you allow gays to get married, shouldn't they also be allowed to raise children? Couldn't that be mentally harmful to the child? The majority of polygamists are far more devoted to their spouse(s) than the majority of monogamists. Ask any of the women who are married to one man, they will say they're completely devoted and love the other women in the relationship just as much as they love the man. I sway almost daily about gay marriage. The main argument for the amendment that no one seems to bring up is that without it, it is not a state's right. Right now I could go to California and get married to a man, and according to the constitution, even though I can't get married to a man in Ohio, the state would have to recognize it. That's the reason for the amendment. Also, whoever said that incest causes mutation, please look up something that was written post-1800...that's completely untrue. Therefore, I would think siblings should be allowed (by current law) to marry before gays. The only reason is because it's taboo. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

[hXc_pwnage]

Along the lines of pedophilia, if you allow gays to get married, shouldn't they also be allowed to raise children? Couldn't that be mentally harmful to the child? The majority of polygamists are far more devoted to their spouse(s) than the majority of monogamists. Ask any of the women who are married to one man, they will say they're completely devoted and love the other women in the relationship just as much as they love the man. I sway almost daily about gay marriage. The main argument for the amendment that no one seems to bring up is that without it, it is not a state's right. Right now I could go to California and get married to a man, and according to the constitution, even though I can't get married to a man in Ohio, the state would have to recognize it. That's the reason for the amendment. Also, whoever said that incest causes mutation, please look up something that was written post-1800...that's completely untrue. Therefore, I would think siblings should be allowed (by current law) to marry before gays. The only reason is because it's taboo. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
It wouldn't be totaly harmful. I grew up with my mom and my aunt. Some girls grow up with just their dad, and maybe even their uncle. I turned out pretty fine... In a sense, I agree with you though. They may get the opposite idea of certain things that heterosexuals know. All that means is there is a slight chance of more gays, but no one wants that. :undecided Polygomists can't be fully devoted to 4 or 5 different women...it just isn't possible. You wouldn't be giving all of yourself to them, only a portion.

But you could make it a state's right. The state has the right to decide if gay couples can marry there, but it should be recognized in all states. The incest thing, I haven't looked into it. I heard the whole mutation-whenever-you-have-a-kid thing not 100% true, but it does happen slightly more than non-incestuous couples.

One of Bush's big stands on gay marriage is that it would pull down society...wouldn't incest pull it down WAY more? A country that allows a brother/sister to marry is worse.

[venus/bacchus]

It wouldn't be totaly harmful. I grew up with my mom and my aunt. Some girls grow up with just their dad, and maybe even their uncle. I turned out pretty fine... In a sense, I agree with you though. They may get the opposite idea of certain things that heterosexuals know. All that means is there is a slight chance of more gays, but no one wants that. :undecided Polygomists can't be fully devoted to 4 or 5 different women...it just isn't possible. You wouldn't be giving all of yourself to them, only a portion.

But you could make it a state's right. The state has the right to decide if gay couples can marry there, but it should be recognized in all states. The incest thing, I haven't looked into it. I heard the whole mutation-whenever-you-have-a-kid thing not 100% true, but it does happen slightly more than non-incestuous couples.

One of Bush's big stands on gay marriage is that it would pull down society...wouldn't incest pull it down WAY more? A country that allows a brother/sister to marry is worse.
Right, but a mom and an aunt aren't a couple, just two people who raised you who happen to be of the same sex. No one knows what it would do to a child. They could be completely fine, but they could also grow up to be gay, in which case, is the state then creating their sexual identity? And polygamists are devoted to every one of their wives. It's possible. But it's a difficult and demanding job. In most cases, the wives are also there fore each other. It's not like they don't acknowledge the others' existence, they end up being like sisters.

In reality, you aren't really making it a state's right. Just because they don't allow you to get married there doesn't mean they're making a decision. They just have to sit back and listen to what other state's tell them to do. And yes, the rate of mutations is like .6% more for every 3 generations...a negligible amount (I don't know if that number's exact, but it's probably close).

And the only reason you think that incest is more of a problem is because you've been raised that way, like many people who are against gay marriage. It's a cultural thing.

[open mind]

Right, but a mom and an aunt aren't a couple, just two people who raised you who happen to be of the same sex. No one knows what it would do to a child. They could be completely fine, but they could also grow up to be gay, in which case, is the state then creating their sexual identity? And polygamists are devoted to every one of their wives. It's possible. But it's a difficult and demanding job. In most cases, the wives are also there fore each other. It's not like they don't acknowledge the others' existence, they end up being like sisters.

In reality, you aren't really making it a state's right. Just because they don't allow you to get married there doesn't mean they're making a decision. They just have to sit back and listen to what other state's tell them to do. And yes, the rate of mutations is like .6% more for every 3 generations...a negligible amount (I don't know if that number's exact, but it's probably close).

And the only reason you think that incest is more of a problem is because you've been raised that way, like many people who are against gay marriage. It's a cultural thing.
the state would not be creating sexual identity any more than they do now with straight parents having kids,and as far as i know there are gay people out there who were raised by straight parents
states acknowledge straight marriages when straight folks move so it's discriminatory for them not to when gay married people do,if there's gonna be a constitutional amendment on marraige it should be that all marriages aren't recognized when you move,if things are supposed to be equal anyways.

[xnotedgex]

Right, but a mom and an aunt aren't a couple, just two people who raised you who happen to be of the same sex. No one knows what it would do to a child. They could be completely fine, but they could also grow up to be gay, in which case, is the state then creating their sexual identity? And polygamists are devoted to every one of their wives. It's possible. But it's a difficult and demanding job. In most cases, the wives are also there fore each other. It's not like they don't acknowledge the others' existence, they end up being like sisters.

In reality, you aren't really making it a state's right. Just because they don't allow you to get married there doesn't mean they're making a decision. They just have to sit back and listen to what other state's tell them to do. And yes, the rate of mutations is like .6% more for every 3 generations...a negligible amount (I don't know if that number's exact, but it's probably close).

And the only reason you think that incest is more of a problem is because you've been raised that way, like many people who are against gay marriage. It's a cultural thing.

where did you pull that mutation stat from...your ass? do you know anything about genetics? crossbreeding? my guess is no

[venus/bacchus]

the state would not be creating sexual identity any more than they do now with straight parents having kids,and as far as i know there are gay people out there who were raised by straight parents
states acknowledge straight marriages when straight folks move so it's discriminatory for them not to when gay married people do,if there's gonna be a constitutional amendment on marraige it should be that all marriages aren't recognized when you move,if things are supposed to be equal anyways.
I understand that, but it is something to think about. We know what happens when children are raised by straight parents, but not by homosexual parents (entirely).

It's a law in many states that gays can't be married. So why do they now have to recognize the law of another state as their own?

where did you pull that mutation stat from...your ass? do you know anything about genetics? crossbreeding? my guess is no
Actually it was out of my ass, but it's something around there. I knew it was an extremely miniscule amount (I can look up the actual number if you really want me to). And just to inform you, my major is bioengineering with a specialization in genetic engineering. The only thing that would cause problems with inbreeding is the fact that recessive genes are more readily passed between family because they're more prevalent. It doesn't affect the combining of genetic material at all, therefore it won't cause any "mutations," just some potentially unwanted traits. Inbreeding actually helps with some species, because many recessive traits cause them to develop immunities to certain viruses and diseases.

[cantnokdahustle]

holy shit yous guys think that homoosexuals choose to be that way!

im sure some people get "confused" (i use that term extremely loose here) and dont know, but truly homosexual people do not choose. It is genetic.

[xnotedgex]

Actually it was out of my ass, but it's something around there. I knew it was an extremely miniscule amount (I can look up the actual number if you really want me to). And just to inform you, my major is bioengineering with a specialization in genetic engineering. The only thing that would cause problems with inbreeding is the fact that recessive genes are more readily passed between family because they're more prevalent. It doesn't affect the combining of genetic material at all, therefore it won't cause any "mutations," just some potentially unwanted traits. Inbreeding actually helps with some species, because many recessive traits cause them to develop immunities to certain viruses and diseases.

with your major,i would think you would be aware of the effects inbreeding has on the immune system, the reduction in the variety of MHC genes which are essential in fighting diseases and viruses...so yes, while an inbred body would be better suited to fight off some diseases....it would be completely defenseless against others

[cantnokdahustle]

im fucking law and english major, im not even getting into this portion of the conversation.

[venus/bacchus]

with your major,i would think you would be aware of the effects inbreeding has on the immune system, the reduction in the variety of MHC genes which are essential in fighting diseases and viruses...so yes, while an inbred body would be better suited to fight off some diseases....it would be completely defenseless against others
That's true, but that doesn't mean they have "mutations" or deviations in regular gene code, (ie more or less chromosomes or anything like that).

[UndefinedBoy]

I understand that, but it is something to think about. We know what happens when children are raised by straight parents, but not by homosexual parents (entirely).

We allow gays to adopt, so obviously thats not a concern. The only real concern that Bush has is that marriage suddenly will become "unholy" if gays are allowed to marry. This would not set a new standard, because it's already been decided that a civil union is fine for gays, just not marriage. The only people saying this means we'll have to let pedophiles and the like marry are you guys. I've never heard that argument and that's probably because it's ridiculous. The government already doesn't believe giving one group something means you have to give it to everyone. Example: giving tax cuts to only the rich.

The only concern is that homophobes and religious fanatics feel marriage is being attacked. Yet, it's obviously not holy anymore (Marriages performed by Elvis in Vegas), and even if it was, there's a separation of church and state. The only reason to be against gay marriages is because you're a homophobe.

[Trainsaw]

I don't think anyone should be able to write descrimination back into the constitution esp George Bush. Its the fucking 21st century lets get over these old times and understand hey if we don't let them marry they're still going to live together, have sex, adopt, the only thing new is that they are legally married so whats the big deal. Bush needs to get off Falwell's cock. If he wants to do something productive make English the national language. At least then i'd be able to order a fucking cheeseburger at the beach w/o a language barrier.

"Like i said in one of my books ' I wouldn't urinate down jerry falwell's throat if his heart was on fire'" James Carvell on conan o'brien

[hXc_pwnage]

Right, but a mom and an aunt aren't a couple, just two people who raised you who happen to be of the same sex. No one knows what it would do to a child. They could be completely fine, but they could also grow up to be gay, in which case, is the state then creating their sexual identity? And polygamists are devoted to every one of their wives. It's possible. But it's a difficult and demanding job. In most cases, the wives are also there fore each other. It's not like they don't acknowledge the others' existence, they end up being like sisters.

In reality, you aren't really making it a state's right. Just because they don't allow you to get married there doesn't mean they're making a decision. They just have to sit back and listen to what other state's tell them to do. And yes, the rate of mutations is like .6% more for every 3 generations...a negligible amount (I don't know if that number's exact, but it's probably close).

And the only reason you think that incest is more of a problem is because you've been raised that way, like many people who are against gay marriage. It's a cultural thing.
I was raised in the same enviroment as gay couples. The fact that I was raised by two people of the same sex. It isn't like kids sit in the room while their parents have sex... When the kids grow older and aren't naive, they will decide on their feelings towards the sexes. The whole polygomist thing is irrelevant, so I won't expand on it.

So if the state makes a law, it isn't their right? That doesn't make any sense to me. If the state puts down a law saying "Gays CAN NOT marry." then they have made it their right. If the state says "Gays CAN marry." than they have made that their right. States are independent enough to where they can make that law, and so it would be what they decided.

Like xnotedgex said, it causes problems in the immune part. That is far worse than any missing finger and what not. If you can choose between having people that are gay or that have a weak immune system, I would choose gay. I myself have an immunde deficiancy (along with other shit), and it isn't any fun. That is a big problem with incest, so that would be a reason to not allow it.

Also, I haven't been raised on any of those beliefs. I have beliefs far different than the rest of my family, not on all, but on most.

[hXc_pwnage]

I don't think anyone should be able to write descrimination back into the constitution esp George Bush. Its the fucking 21st century lets get over these old times and understand hey if we don't let them marry they're still going to live together, have sex, adopt, the only thing new is that they are legally married so whats the big deal. Bush needs to get off Falwell's cock. If he wants to do something productive make English the national language. At least then i'd be able to order a fucking cheeseburger at the beach w/o a language barrier.

"Like i said in one of my books ' I wouldn't urinate down jerry falwell's throat if his heart was on fire'" James Carvell on conan o'brien
LMAO, that's great. But yeah, all that Bush would be doing is going backwards. It would help us in now way, it would just hurt us.

[hXc_pwnage]

The only concern is that homophobes and religious fanatics feel marriage is being attacked. Yet, it's obviously not holy anymore (Marriages performed by Elvis in Vegas), and even if it was, there's a separation of church and state. The only reason to be against gay marriages is because you're a homophobe.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[charly horse]

I believe, that implementing this amendment is against the american way. Isn' t this country about freedoms, freedom of religon, etc. Yet we want to institute and amendment to the constitution discouraging freedom of sexuality? I don't see why gays marrying effects anyone else.

How would you feel if you were gay and your partner became termanly(sp) ill. You would have absolutely no say in what would happen to them. Because techincally(sp) if you are not married or binded legally in any way you really don't have any say. You couldn't ride in the ambulance with them if they were hurt, because you aren't family. But if you think about it your partner would be what you considered family. Maybe even the closest thing to a family that you would have.

I think that this amendment is rediculous(sp) because it's basically contradicting the entire freedom agenda of this country. Its horrific that the president is basically just doing this for politcal reasons. If people say it's for religous reasons, what happened to the whole seperation of church and state. The government has no right barring people from making their decision on who they want to marry.

[yeat182]

holy shit yous guys think that homoosexuals choose to be that way!

im sure some people get "confused" (i use that term extremely loose here) and dont know, but truly homosexual people do not choose. It is genetic.


what about bi-sexuals...

or the term "sexual preferance"

[venus/bacchus]

I was raised in the same enviroment as gay couples. The fact that I was raised by two people of the same sex. It isn't like kids sit in the room while their parents have sex... When the kids grow older and aren't naive, they will decide on their feelings towards the sexes. The whole polygomist thing is irrelevant, so I won't expand on it.

So if the state makes a law, it isn't their right? That doesn't make any sense to me. If the state puts down a law saying "Gays CAN NOT marry." then they have made it their right. If the state says "Gays CAN marry." than they have made that their right. States are independent enough to where they can make that law, and so it would be what they decided.

Like xnotedgex said, it causes problems in the immune part. That is far worse than any missing finger and what not. If you can choose between having people that are gay or that have a weak immune system, I would choose gay. I myself have an immunde deficiancy (along with other shit), and it isn't any fun. That is a big problem with incest, so that would be a reason to not allow it.

Also, I haven't been raised on any of those beliefs. I have beliefs far different than the rest of my family, not on all, but on most.
You weren't raised in the same environment as gay parents. Romantic love and the love of family are completely different things. And gays do show their affection in public, so I imagine they'd show it around their children. Therefore helping them form an opinion. And I fail to see how the polygamist argument is irrelevent. The definition of marriage used to be "between a man and a woman." Now it's being expanded to include same sex marriages, so why aren't multiple men and women marriages included? They seem to have just as much of a right.

States CAN NOT say gays can't marry, that's the problem. They can say it all they want, but if the couple decides to get married in another state and then move back to their home state, the state has to recognize it. Therefore, they don't have an opinion on the issue, they have the opinion of the state in which they were married.

And you're telling me people aren't allowed to get married if they're siblings because it *could* cause a problem with the immune system? That's like saying "you have mental retardation or ADD, you can't have children because they could have the disorder also." That seems illegal and wrong to me.

[mirtizzle]

could you change your sexual preference tomorrow?
do you even know any gay people? one of my best friends is gay and we've discussed the fact he'd LOVE to be straight - and not be thrust into some subculture everyone wants to shut out
but he can't help but be attracted to guys, just like i can't help but do the same

[hXc_pwnage]

You weren't raised in the same environment as gay parents. Romantic love and the love of family are completely different things. And gays do show their affection in public, so I imagine they'd show it around their children. Therefore helping them form an opinion. And I fail to see how the polygamist argument is irrelevent. The definition of marriage used to be "between a man and a woman." Now it's being expanded to include same sex marriages, so why aren't multiple men and women marriages included? They seem to have just as much of a right.

States CAN NOT say gays can't marry, that's the problem. They can say it all they want, but if the couple decides to get married in another state and then move back to their home state, the state has to recognize it. Therefore, they don't have an opinion on the issue, they have the opinion of the state in which they were married.

And you're telling me people aren't allowed to get married if they're siblings because it *could* cause a problem with the immune system? That's like saying "you have mental retardation or ADD, you can't have children because they could have the disorder also." That seems illegal and wrong to me.
Yes, they show affection, but don't the families too? Families kiss. And I don't know many couples that full fleged make out in front of their kids? Also, do you think little kids care? Little kids see past all that bullshit. They don't see color, they don't see same sex as being wrong, they just see the love they show.

So the definition of marriage is "man and woman?" Is it plural? No. Is "man and man" or "woman and woman" plural? No. I believe that a kid seeing his dad with multiple women would be worse on the kid. It's hard seeing your mom/dad going from spouse to spouse, so going from mom to mom would be hard too.

That means they have to pay money to leave the state, pay money to get married, and pay money to get back. More money into the economy. Or if you wish, you could just do it as certain states allow marriage and recognize it and others don't.

I'm saying relatives shouldn't have children because it has a BIG chance of causin immune difficiancies. Why do you think parents that have high rates of diseases and what not don't make children? Because they know it will most likely happen. ADD doesn't have the chance of making you get diseases a lot easier making it easier to die from them. Mental retardation doesn't do it either.

[hXc_pwnage]

could you change your sexual preference tomorrow?
do you even know any gay people? one of my best friends is gay and we've discussed the fact he'd LOVE to be straight - and not be thrust into some subculture everyone wants to shut out
but he can't help but be attracted to guys, just like i can't help but do the same
I don't know who you are talking to...so I'll just answer it anyways.

No, I couldn't change it. Being gay isn't something you force yourself into, neither is being straight. It's just something that happens. Yes, I know many gay people. Some of my mom's best friends are gay, same with my grandmother. (God, they are so funny!) Sure, some may want to be straight, but others love being gay and who they are. Maybe he doesn't want to be gay because it isn't considered normal by the mass of society. Many are outcasted just because of the sexual preference they have.

[venus/bacchus]

Yes, they show affection, but don't the families too? Families kiss. And I don't know many couples that full fleged make out in front of their kids? Also, do you think little kids care? Little kids see past all that bullshit. They don't see color, they don't see same sex as being wrong, they just see the love they show.

So the definition of marriage is "man and woman?" Is it plural? No. Is "man and man" or "woman and woman" plural? No. I believe that a kid seeing his dad with multiple women would be worse on the kid. It's hard seeing your mom/dad going from spouse to spouse, so going from mom to mom would be hard too.

That means they have to pay money to leave the state, pay money to get married, and pay money to get back. More money into the economy. Or if you wish, you could just do it as certain states allow marriage and recognize it and others don't.

I'm saying relatives shouldn't have children because it has a BIG chance of causin immune difficiancies. Why do you think parents that have high rates of diseases and what not don't make children? Because they know it will most likely happen. ADD doesn't have the chance of making you get diseases a lot easier making it easier to die from them. Mental retardation doesn't do it either.
Yes all families show affection, but when gay affection is the only thing that a child sees, it might be the only thing that a child perceives as "real romantic love." The brain is developing the most in the early years, and it absorbs the most information then. They could very well believe that gay love is the right way (I'm not saying it's right or wrong) and that heterosexual love is completely wrong.

Divorced men and polygamist men are very different. It's not like it's a struggle for the child to give their love to one woman, and then have her get divorced and have a new mother. The same women are in their life as long as they're alive. And as far as I can see, it's like living in a large extended family.

So you'd rather have a better economy with less state's rights? And I'd love to have only certain states recognize gay marriage and some who didn't (as the state chose), but that's imposssible. In the Constitution it says that if someone is married in one state, the marriage must be recognized in the state in which they're living. That overrides any state law.

That's just wrong to say that relatives can't have children because the children might have an immune deficiency. That's exactly what Hitler tried to do in Germany, castrating and giving lobotomies to anyone he felt wasn't up the the standards of bearing children. Why does the government have the right to say who can have children and who can't?

[hXc_pwnage]

Yes all families show affection, but when gay affection is the only thing that a child sees, it might be the only thing that a child perceives as "real romantic love." The brain is developing the most in the early years, and it absorbs the most information then. They could very well believe that gay love is the right way (I'm not saying it's right or wrong) and that heterosexual love is completely wrong.

Divorced men and polygamist men are very different. It's not like it's a struggle for the child to give their love to one woman, and then have her get divorced and have a new mother. The same women are in their life as long as they're alive. And as far as I can see, it's like living in a large extended family.

So you'd rather have a better economy with less state's rights? And I'd love to have only certain states recognize gay marriage and some who didn't (as the state chose), but that's imposssible. In the Constitution it says that if someone is married in one state, the marriage must be recognized in the state in which they're living. That overrides any state law.

That's just wrong to say that relatives can't have children because the children might have an immune deficiency. That's exactly what Hitler tried to do in Germany, castrating and giving lobotomies to anyone he felt wasn't up the the standards of bearing children. Why does the government have the right to say who can have children and who can't?
This is really going nowhere, it's all opinionated. This is taking too much...energy (hah) so I'll just let it sit where it's at. I won't convince you and you won't convice me. Plus, the arguements are just going in circles. :stormtroo

[open mind]

there are gay couples out there with kids, and i haven't heard anything about all their kids turning out gay,it's not like gay people having kids doesn't happen already.

[Trainsaw]

Off topic but....
hXc_pwnage we have the same song in our sig's awesome

Me:
I've got a book of matches....

You:
Step one: Slit my throat
Step two: Play in my blood
Step three: Cover me in dirty sheets and run laughing out of the house
Step four: Stop off at Edgebrook Creek and rinse those crimson hands
You took me hostange and made your demands
I couldn't meet them so you cut off my fingers
One by one

[hXc_pwnage]

Off topic but....
hXc_pwnage we have the same song in our sig's awesome

Me:
I've got a book of matches....

You:
Step one: Slit my throat
Step two: Play in my blood
Step three: Cover me in dirty sheets and run laughing out of the house
Step four: Stop off at Edgebrook Creek and rinse those crimson hands
You took me hostange and made your demands
I couldn't meet them so you cut off my fingers
One by one
I love you.

We are greater than all these AP people because...well we have Alkaline Trio in our sigs. :D

[yeat182]

You weren't raised in the same environment as gay parents. Romantic love and the love of family are completely different things. And gays do show their affection in public, so I imagine they'd show it around their children. Therefore helping them form an opinion. And I fail to see how the polygamist argument is irrelevent. The definition of marriage used to be "between a man and a woman." Now it's being expanded to include same sex marriages, so why aren't multiple men and women marriages included? They seem to have just as much of a right.

States CAN NOT say gays can't marry, that's the problem. They can say it all they want, but if the couple decides to get married in another state and then move back to their home state, the state has to recognize it. Therefore, they don't have an opinion on the issue, they have the opinion of the state in which they were married.

And you're telling me people aren't allowed to get married if they're siblings because it *could* cause a problem with the immune system? That's like saying "you have mental retardation or ADD, you can't have children because they could have the disorder also." That seems illegal and wrong to me.

states don't have to recognize out of state marriage licenses...

[venus/bacchus]

This is really going nowhere, it's all opinionated. This is taking too much...energy (hah) so I'll just let it sit where it's at. I won't convince you and you won't convice me. Plus, the arguements are just going in circles. :stormtroo
fair enough
there are gay couples out there with kids, and i haven't heard anything about all their kids turning out gay,it's not like gay people having kids doesn't happen already.
I understand that, but it's not very prevalent. So the odds are based on a small amount of people. They don't have to be "gay" either, there could be any number of things altered about them. I'm not saying it will be a bad thing, but it's always a possiblity that should be thought about.
states don't have to recognize out of state marriage licenses...
Are you sure? That's one of the arguments I've heard over and over on tv

[hXc_pwnage]

I like you venus. You like A3. Therefor, you are cool.

[hXc_pwnage]

Are you sure? That's one of the arguments I've heard over and over on tv
It's true. Rosie O'Donnell just got married, but if she moves back to Florida her marriage is void.

[venus/bacchus]

I like you venus. You like A3. Therefor, you are cool.
Thanks man, the feeling's mutual, that's definitely one of the minimums for being cool

I understand that the state doesn't have to recognize the marriage, but the reason for the amendment is because the Constitution says that if one state recognizes a law or lisence, another state also must. Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act which said that the states don't have to recognize another state's marriage, but most people feel that there will be a lot of suits because the Constitution would be held in higher regard than the Act, and therefore the Act will be overturned. That's the actual reason for the amendment. I was a little misinformed.

[mirtizzle]

There are pedifiles who would give everything to stop their feelings for children. There are alcoholics who would do the same with alcohol. It's acting on these feelins where the problem lies.

give me a fucking break. your comparison is just irrelevant
you can't compare pedophilia and alcoholism to homosexuality. those are two destructive and psychologically damaging diseases. and i fail to see how homosexuality falls into those catagories

[yeat182]

fair enough

I understand that, but it's not very prevalent. So the odds are based on a small amount of people. They don't have to be "gay" either, there could be any number of things altered about them. I'm not saying it will be a bad thing, but it's always a possiblity that should be thought about.

Are you sure? That's one of the arguments I've heard over and over on tv


i'm 90% sure, but maybe they only have to recognize those that fit their defention of marriage, and some states have defined it as man and woman, so they wouldn't recognize a homosexual marriage.

[yeat182]

give me a fucking break. your comparison is just irrelevant
you can't compare pedophilia and alcoholism to homosexuality. those are two destructive and psychologically damaging diseases. and i fail to see how homosexuality falls into those catagories

because no one knows whether or not homosexuality is a psychological disorder, genetic disorder, or a choice...so it could very easily be the same as both of those (only not as destructive)

[hXc_pwnage]

because no one knows whether or not homosexuality is a psychological disorder, genetic disorder, or a choice...so it could very easily be the same as both of those (only not as destructive)
If homosexuality is a phsychological 'disorder', then heterosexualality is just the same. I believe that it is a mix between genetics and choice. But, like mirtizzle and you said, it isn't as destructive. Alcohol causes destruction to your liver and pedophilia damages the kids.

[open mind]

because no one knows whether or not homosexuality is a psychological disorder, genetic disorder, or a choice...so it could very easily be the same as both of those (only not as destructive)
alchoholism is classified as a disease.
pedophilia is classified as a criminal behavior.
being gay as far as i know is classifeid as neither.

[Justin_stacy]

alchoholism is classified as a disease.
pedophilia is classified as a criminal behavior.
being gay as far as i know is classifeid as neither.

Being gay was labeled a mental disorder up until 73' and it was only changed because the gay community banded against.....Not because their was any evidence disproving the theory......

[hXc_pwnage]

Being gay was labeled a mental disorder up until 73' and it was only changed because the gay community banded against.....Not because their was any evidence disproving the theory......
Was there any evidence proving it? If so, I would like to see this evidence. I believe it's just like the whole racism thing, they believed gays were lesser people and couldn't accept the fact that people could truly be like that.

[open mind]

Was there any evidence proving it? If so, I would like to see this evidence. I believe it's just like the whole racism thing, they believed gays were lesser people and couldn't accept the fact that people could truly be like that.

took the words right out of my mouth.

[yeat182]

alchoholism is classified as a disease.
pedophilia is classified as a criminal behavior.
being gay as far as i know is classifeid as neither.

i wasn't saying it was a disease, or whether it should be or not, i was only stating that no one knows why people are gay, and it could just as easily be a similar case as alcoholism or pedophilia.

[yeat182]

Was there any evidence proving it? If so, I would like to see this evidence. I believe it's just like the whole racism thing, they believed gays were lesser people and couldn't accept the fact that people could truly be like that.

no one said they were lesser people, they said they were different, and there must be a reason for that difference, and that reason could be a mental disorder. just like people who suffer from depression aren't any less of a person, they are just different and its due to a disorder.

[open mind]

no one said they were lesser people, they said they were different, and there must be a reason for that difference, and that reason could be a mental disorder. just like people who suffer from depression aren't any less of a person, they are just different and its due to a disorder.
if they are not considered to be lesser people why is gay marriage even an issue?
depression is also a disease easily diagnosed by simply taking pictures of the brain.i've yet to hear about gay peoples brains showing different colors like depression makes part of your brain come out blue when scanned.

[yeat182]

if they are not considered to be lesser people why is gay marriage even an issue?
depression is also a disease easily diagnosed by simply taking pictures of the brain.i've yet to hear about gay peoples brains showing different colors like depression makes part of your brain come out blue when scanned.

that is my whole point, we don't know why people are gay. if they can't tell by brain scans, then it could simply be a matter of choice, but no one knows.

[open mind]

the fact is there is no proof that being gay is a disorder or a disease or whatever you wanna call it,you may say it's not right or normal, but don't act like it's some kind of malady when there is no proof to back up that assertion.
just so you know i'm a straight cristian.

[hXc_pwnage]

no one said they were lesser people, they said they were different, and there must be a reason for that difference, and that reason could be a mental disorder. just like people who suffer from depression aren't any less of a person, they are just different and its due to a disorder.
Exactly, they are just different. Are they harmful to others? No. They are the same as us, they just have a DIFFERENT sexual prefferece. Like open mind said, if they aren't any lesser, than why is marriage between them even questioned?

[yeat182]

the fact is there is no proof that being gay is a disorder or a disease or whatever you wanna call it,you may say it's not right or normal, but don't act like it's some kind of malady when there is no proof to back up that assertion.
just so you know i'm a straight cristian.


i didn't say that it was a "malady" only that there is no proof that it isn't a disorder of some kind...there is no proof to refute it either. which is my whole point, again for the 3rd or 4th time, that there is no known reason why people are gay.

[yeat182]

Exactly, they are just different. Are they harmful to others? No. They are the same as us, they just have a DIFFERENT sexual prefferece. Like open mind said, if they aren't any lesser, than why is marriage between them even questioned?

because many believe the term marriage is defined as a man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman, like the term automobile is defined as cars and trucks and not motorcycles, or scooters.

[open mind]

because many believe the term marriage is defined as a man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman, like the term automobile is defined as cars and trucks and not motorcycles, or scooters.
since when has america been about forcing beliefs onto others?

[open mind]

i didn't say that it was a "malady" only that there is no proof that it isn't a disorder of some kind...there is no proof to refute it either. which is my whole point, again for the 3rd or 4th time, that there is no known reason why people are gay.
your point is pointless then.

[yeat182]

since when has america been about forcing beliefs onto others?

like telling people that gay marriage has to be accepted?

[open mind]

i personally don't accept gay marriage as something i would do,it's not like gay people are telling everyone they have to be gay like straight people say everyone has to be straight,the amount of discrimination and hatred these days against gays is a greater evil than being gay,in my opinion.
every belief system is centered on kindness and love,it's moronic to use faith as a reason to discriminate and hate.

[MrChainsaw389]

Bush just wants to hide the fact that he's gay..... :laugh:

[hXc_pwnage]

http://www.geocities.com/startavelvetrevolutionpictures/ExceptForHomos.JPG

Pwned.

[mirtizzle]

Bush just wants to hide the fact that he's gay..... :laugh:

hey you know what they say.. those who have a serious issue with it usually have questions about their own sexuality

[open mind]

Bush just wants to hide the fact that he's gay..... :laugh:
i know cheney's daughter is gay.

[xnotedgex]

like telling people that gay marriage has to be accepted?

your disciriminatory arguments are quite pitiful

[yeat182]

meh...

[scitsofreaky]

What pisses me off is that Musgrave (CO, R), who is backing the bill, is such an idiot. One of the local newscasters in CO interviewed her, and all she kept saying was that allowing gay marriage is redifining marriage, and by redifining it we will desttroy it and allow for other things like polygamy. Does she not understand what redifining means? Like it would just earase the defintition at all.
Also, if the "new" difinition of marriage would be allowing gay marriage, then why do they have to amend the constitution? So, aren't they just trying to redifine what legal marriage is to what they happen to believe?
They are just counting on the "christian" in everyone, or at least a majority, to get this bs amendment ratified.