Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same Sex Marriages?

Do we need one?

I think not. Why should anyone care if a same sex couple wants to make the same committment to each other that a heterosexual couple does?

Beware of the religious right.

With me not being fully grown up yet, I am yet to fully (for want of a MUCH better word) approve of gay relationships. If I may say so without sounding prejudiced and obnoxious, the thought of it and what they get up to disgusts me to no end. But that doesn't mean I don't like gay people; I actually haven't met anybody who is gay (not that I know of anyway).

This ban seems a bit silly to me. It seems (at least on the news here) that Bush is trying to win a re-election by doing all the wrong things--like trying to fight fire with gasoline. For the world to apparently be moving forward and America to be the place of freedom and whatnot, why do this? I must admit though, I had a bit of a giggle at the gay choir wading side to side and singing "Going to the Chapel and we're..."

Mick

Very well put, Mick.

Some people say that gay marriage "disrespects the sanctity of marriage".

What about divorce? That doesn't? To me, divorce disrespects the sanctity of marriage more than two people of the same sex committing their love to each other and spending their lives in a monogamous relationship.

Hypocrites.

I think this is overlooked by others not from the US. Sure we have freedom and "whatnot," but we still have laws & rules that govern us, so we are not TOTALLY free. We still can and cannot do somethings, but I guess we're more "free" than other countries, such as Iraq.

As for what the Don said, I totally agree with him. I am TOTALLY against divorce & it disgusts me. I hope to be married one day & I think the problem that some, not all, do is that they decide to get married, knowing that they can always get divored. Personally I don't feel there is enough religion in the world. I am very religious & I'm not saying everyone should be Catholic like me, but I am against divorce & gay marriages. That's just my own personal opinion, and I'm not saying anybody elses is wrong!

I completely agree with this.

Thank you for the backup Don Vercetti!

I don't think we "totally" agree.

I am not "TOTALLY" against divorce, and, I am not at all against gay marriage.

I never said I was against divorce, although I think it happens WAY too much. Sometimes it's necessary, and that's fine. After a while people may not get along. Life is too short to live through a bad relationship for the rest of your life, so do what you have to do. (I won't go further into it here; that's a different topic really)

I just find it funny (and hypocritical) that divorce doesn't bother these closed-minded people at all, but gay marriage does. That makes no sense to me.

Ok, I misunderstood you Don, sorry. I agree with you on this too, as I feel that divorce can be necessary only in extreme cases. I feel that a man & women should get divorced only if one has cheater on the other or something like that. This whole, well we just don't get along anymore is for the birds. I LOVE my mother to death but we don't always get along. But that doesn't mean I'm going to disown her or anything. I also agree with you Don that there are A LOT of hypocrites who claim to be Christians, which also makes me sick because it gives the rest of us a bad name!

OK I'm going to sound so naive here but ....if you (the US) are going to ban same sex marriages that means they can marry now right. Well, who marries them? Surely not a priest or church thing?? Sorry I can't get my head round this lol.

FH

I echo what you have said...

Why cant people in love stay together in matrimony jsut cause their gay?

The way I understand it (I may be wrong), but it's not technically legal, but some local jurisdictions and states claimed it treated gays as second-class citizens so are marrying couples anyway. Some people (including the president) are against this, and want to add an amendment to our Constitution (the document that "secures the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity") banning it altogether.

As for who marries them, I don't think there have been religous church weddings (I may be wrong), but surely anyone can be married in a chapel or elsewhere by a minister (anyone can be a "minister" ) or a justice of the peace, etc.

I'm not "in favor" of same sex marriage. I'm simply not against it.

I don't care what other people do, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights. And I will never understand why anyone else wouldn't feel the same way.

Anyone who wants to be against same sex marriage is fine with me, even though I can't understand their reasons.

But I didn't intend this thread to be a debate about whether or not we should allow it. My question is

"Do we need a constitutional amendment to prevent it?"

Shouldn't this be something that the individual states decide for themselves?

Isn't Bush trying to make a political issue out of something that in the grand scheme of things is relatively unimportant?

Isn't he pandering to the extreme conservatives and the religious right?

I get ya J Geoff.Thanks for the explanation.

FH

"Do we need a constitutional amendment to prevent it?"

No.

Shouldn't this be something that the individual states decide for themselves?

It really shouldn't be anyone else's decision besides the two people wanting to be married. What the hell business is it of the president's -- or the governors' or mayors' -- that two people want to join in matrimony?

Isn't Bush trying to make a political issue out of something that in the grand scheme of things is relatively unimportant?

Yes.

Isn't he pandering to the extreme conservatives and the religious right?

Yes. And I really don't know how that is supposed to help him. He should be leaning a little to the left if he wants to be re-elected, I think.

I think we need to ban some. If 2 men or 2 women want to get married, so be it. I just can't stand when 2 men turn into women or when 2 women turn into men. That disgusts me. -Pat

Nicely put!

I´d not belive that a marriage between people of the same sex has something bad, if they not bother our private life, i don´t care what they do, is not the normal thing, i guess, but what is normal is these times, is relative, so i´d not have nothing against or something in favor,is not my business i guess.

If they get an amendement passed to ban gay marriage, then why stop there? Why not ban other religions, ban free speech, ban freedom of the press, bring back Prohibition, ban abortion and all that shit? I have a bad feeling about this. America is really pulling a Rome.

I'm going out on a limb here BUT I believe marriage is meant for men to marry women and women marry men. The thought of someone being gay and lesbian just disgusts me. It is a sin and I feel what God says goes. I'm sorry if I'm making you guys mad at me but that is how I feel. I hope you don't have bad feelings against me or kick me off the board. Mignon

Don´t worry mignon, all we have diferents opinions about this and have to respect all

Amen, but it wont go THAT far...

You think? Hell, if Bush can pull this off, then anything goes. He could even pull a Hitler before the elections.

See, that's one of the problems here.

You may think it won't go that far, but you don't really know.

It's a slippery slope once you start sliding down...

Aren't there some states in America that permits an animal to marry its owner?

Anyway, I'm against marriage full stop.

Mig, you're not on a limb. You're solidly affixed to the tree trunk. I heard on the radio last night that 65% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages and that number has even increased over the last 6 months. Speaking from the Catholic point of view, the marriage or union of two people of the same sex is not condoned in the Bible. There are several references to this. It is also viewed as against natural law. Now you can get into semantics and legalities about "marriage", but for many Judeo-Christian followers same sex marriage should not occur.

I understand, of course, that the Bible does not condone same sex unions. I wouldn't expect otherwise.

But again, do we need a constitutional amendment to prohibit something that IMO should be a choice made by consenting individuals?

And perish the thought that we need a constitutional amendment to prohibit something just because the Bible says it's wrong. Separation of church and state and all that.

How about a constitutional amendment prohibiting adultery?

Remember, we're on a slippery slope here...

Let's ban same sex marriage
Let's ban same sex relations
Let's ban sexual relations between two consenting adults who aren't married
Let's ban sexual relations between members of different races

I Believe that 65% of all Americans are against same sex marriages. Big deal. I bet deep down in their hearts, 65% of Americans (or close) would be against Whites marrying Blacks.

And I'll say it again: Is this such a big important issue that we need to amend the Constitution over it?

I am not a fan of gays, but I see no reason that the government should ban their right to marry. It is very, very, Un-American!

America is the land of the free, where everyone has the right to practice anything within the scope of the law. Seeing that being gay is perfectly legal, and should always be, considering the government has no right to decide what is moral and what is not, they then have no right to make gay marriage illegal.

Add to that the fact that marriage licenses are a power that is not granted to the federal government by our Consitution, and I see no reason why this is even an issue. Granted, theya re attempting to bypass thislast issue by making it an amendment, but I do not see any reason to change our Consitution based on the idea that gay marriage is "unnatural".

First of all, as stated earlier, the government has no right to control our moral decisions. And if they tried to amend the constitution to change that, America would crumble. That would turn our lovely democratic republic into a totalitarian government, in which the could control everything we do. This amendment would lead us down a slippery slope to the destruction of everything that this great country stands for.

Remeber folks, this is all coming from a hateful bigot who has time and time again bashed gaywads unashamedly. This is not a moral issue, as Bush is trying to portray. It is a political and governmental issue that seeks to undermine the principles that our Founding Fathers established. If this freedom is taken away from the homos, what is to stop the government from taking away more freedoms from us. Hell, the Patriot Act already stripped us of many freedoms that we once took for granted. I'm telling you folks, this is a dangerous slippery slope!

I'm surprised and pleased with your response, HH. Especially the slippery slope part.

You old gay basher, you.

We the people would rebel against our goverment should it go too far... But maybe we'd take it up the ass... Just like they want us too...

No, that's exactly what Bush is trying to prevent...

I personally dont care if gays get married. Yeah the idae is disgusting, but it doesnt hurt me or anyone else outside the relationship. The country is about freedom(haha) so they should have the right to get married if they want.

Lets ban anyone whose testicles have been crushed!

Here are seven more potential Constitutional Amendments.


No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord (Duet 23:2)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death (Ex 21:17)

Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death (Ex 21:18)

You shall not let a sorceress live. (Ex 22:17 )

When a man strikes his male or female slave in the eye and destroys the use of the eye, he shall let the slave go free in compensation for the eye (Ex 21:26)

You shall not partake of any fat or any blood. (Lev 3:17)

Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard. (Lev 19:27)

true...i agree with you all the way.

DonsAdvisor...Any poor schmuck who has had his testicles crushed has already been through enough without being barred from heaven!!

I live in Sandoval County in New Mexico. Yeah, you may have read about us in Newsweek. We made national news the past few weeks because our County Clerk was issuing marriage licenses to gay couples before the Attorney General was able to make a ruling about the legality of such an act. Now, the people that were married are worried their union may not be legal and the Governer is now looking into the issue.

My two cents:

Point #1 - I don't judge a person by their sexual orientation. I think there is much more to a person than whether or not they are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual(more nowadays than you think) etc...

Point #2 - I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. The Church preaches marriage as the union between a man and a woman. But imagine a gay couple that has been together for a number of years, say 20 years, and have not been able to benefit the same as a heterosexual couple but all this time have been living together and supporting one another. Should one homosexual be able to provide insurance benefits to their partner as hetero couples do?

Maybe because of this, there should be some kind of "Cohabitation Agreement" which makes gay couples union legal. Call it cohabitation, marriage...who cares?

Point #3 - Gay couples are already adopting children whether they are allowed to be married or not. We have not been able to stop this. So by not allowing them to marry, are we putting the cart before the horse?

I have some traditional beliefs. I hope my daughter will always be raised by her mother and her father. But I also remember the day I found out for certain my mother was a lesbian when I was about 11 years old. We had a woman living with us for years and they wore rings and celebrated their anniversary. I dealt with strong feelings all my teenage life about homosexuality and finally came to the conclusion that as long as my mother was happy, it didn't matter who it was - or what gender they were. She is to my knowledge still dating women. If she wanted to marry one? Heck, I know a county clerk who is still taking applications for marriage licenses....

Just not so sure how I like the sound of "I now pronounce you Wife and Wife...."

Excellent point.

For those who are interested and can grasp the implications...here is a link to an excellent article I came across which in my opiinon addresses the issue beautifully.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37331

The simplicity with which this whole thing is being viewed, is frankly quite chilling. Sorry folks, but in the long run I do not think that changing the definition of marriage will be a good thing.

AppleOnYa

Well Apple, he makes a few fair points--I'll give him that.

But let's take it from who it comes. This appears to be a website devoted to a right-wing Christian viewpoint. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just don't agree with it. I don't care for any religous group attempting to foist their morals on us through legislation.

In another article in the commentary section of this site, the author says the following about same-sex marriage:

"This is the single greatest issue Americans face today.".

Bit of an exaggeration, wouldn't you say?

plawrence:

Your response is not surprising, considering the last line of your post introducing this subject.

On the contrary, it's not an exaggeration at all. That's why I mention the simplistic way at which this is being viewed.

But hey, disagree if you like (while at the same time you admit he makes 'fair' points). Several years from now when the shit hits the fan, then 20/20 vision will tell us who was on the right and left - er, I mean wrong - side.

AppleOnYa

ps - I'll give you one thing, plawrence - at least you bothered to read the article.

Obviously, this is not a one-sided issue, and valid points can be made in support of either argument.

Yeah, he made some good points. Anything that sparks controversy usually has decent arguments on both sides, otherwise there's nothing controversial about it.

But c'mon...Do you really think that this is the single most important issue that Americans face today?

How about a few of the following:

--Making our country safe from the threats of terrorism
--The millions and millions of Americans who live in poverty
--The pitiful state of public education almost everywhere in this country
--Should they make a Godfather Part 4?

Just to name a few.

Well, all of those issues are still out there, being addressed and debated every moment of every day (including the last, most important one that you list ). You'll notice that the country hasn't stopped in its tracks yet because of this subject.

But it's snowballing very quickly, every day another State seems to get on the bandwagon. To the people out there who want what they want when they want it, there are NO other issues, NO other concerns.

While other things are important, somebody out there has got to have the balls to take this on. The President and a very few in the Senate have started, but they need support and they're not getting it. It's a sad, sad day...

Again plawrence, while we appreciate your bringing the topic up here on the Board, you (and many others) are looking at this very one-dimensionally; not considering future circumstances.

Bill O'Reilly may have been exaggerating the other day, but wasn't too far off the mark when he stated last week that if the tide turns against protecting the definition of marriage, 10 years from now, somebody could marry a duck if they felt like it.

Apple

So if someone wanted to marry a duck, what would be so terrible.

Seriously; I'm not trying to be facetious here.

Who would care, or why would anyone care?

Because the duck would be on his or hers spouse's health plan at work?
Because the duck would inherit all the spouse's assets of the spouse if the spouse dies before the duck does? (People leave money to their pets all the time).

As far as the "people who want what they want when they want it" having "no other concerns", well, that's very true, but it applies to all people who feel very strongly one way or another about any issue, not just the proponents of same-sex marriage.

I will say, though, that it might be worth the price of admission to see the marriage consumated.

Which reminds me: There are still some ridiculous sodomy laws on the books, which, in some cases I'm sure, make it against the law to have sex with animals other than humans. I'm sure you know that in one state (Texas was it?) laws against oral and anal sex were recently repealed. Why should anyone care about that? (Hmmm, maybe a subject for a new thread....).

It's all part of being perched atop the slippery slope, ready to start sliding. First we'll ban same-sex marriage. And I'm sure that those who oppose same-sex marriage also oppose same-sex sexual relations, so they can go to work on banning that next. And I bet the same people deep down inside oppose sexual relations between members of different races, so that will be the next to go.

Anyway, to go in a slightly different direction: I'm not sure, but I think you kinda begged my question up there...

"Do you really think that this is the single most important issue that Americans face today?"

And the original question, "Do we really need a constitutional amendment for all this?"

I read the entire article - with an open mind I might add. I do open my mind because I feel even though I have very traditional views on some things in life, often times I am also very realistic about these things and others as well.

The thing I most object to in the article is the "postmodern licentious, amoral culture" we live in. Amoral? We have been fed to the dogs already?? Is there not good in our society anymore? By saying the above quote, this issue now becomes a morality issue.

So then - if people consider me to be an "immoral" person because I may participate in what society thinks are "immoral" acts, should I be banned from seeking to be married?

In that case, then strippers, swingers, compulsive gamblers and alchoholics would forever be single.

The reality is homosexuals loving each other is alive and well. Amoral? Perhaps in the eyes of some people. I have to agree with plawrence that maybe we have bigger fish to fry. Thus my stand that maybe we explore into cohabitation laws.

Oh, sorry...didn't mean to ignore your direct questions.

If you look at it in just in terms of same sex marriage...NO.

If you look at it in terms of future implicatons...YES.

Yes, I believe we do.

But...I'm also realistic enough to know that we're probably not gonna get one.

Cheers,
Apple

Fair enough.

When the duck gets married, you wanna go?

You kidding?

I'll be the one marrying the duck!!



AppleOnYa

I bet it would be that duck who does all those TV commericals.- AFFLECK!

What "future implications"? I read that article, and it took 730 words to dance around the question, with repetitive verbal diarrhea, and it provided no real answer.

What follows is not directed toward Apple:

God made us in His image. All of us. He is the judge and jury, not some fallible human society wearing robes and wigs.

I'm a Christian, raised Catholic (now in recovery - lol) and I am fairly spiritual. Spiritual, not necessarily religious. I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus. But I do not necessarily believe in all the Church Doctrine.

And I surely do NOT believe in hypocrisy.

The same people who so disapprove of gay relations (and marriage among two same-sex people who may love each other more than anyone else on the planet; even you) -- these people never speak out against the "evils" (according to the same Bible you quote) of premaritial heterosexual relations... or masturbation... or oral/anal sex... or prostitution... let alone divorce -- or any sexual activity not meant for procreation.

Being "queer" is evil, but not every other sexual "deviancy" everyone else enjoys on a daily basis? Bullocks!

Jesus does not specifically address the question of homosexuality, so why should we? Why are such "good, pure" people so concerned with things that DO NOT CONCERN OR MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to them at all?

Why do we feel the "need" to "protect" our society so much that we need to cross the politics-religion line? HOW ON EARTH is some gay couple troubling to ANYONE else? What have they done to YOU?

Basically, I want to know HOW same-sex marriages would interfere with YOUR life... what would YOU lose?

I cannot even believe there's a debate about this; because surely Jesus did not teach Prejudice and Hate at all... What he taught was Compassion and Love for your fellow Man. Many people seem to forget about that.

And hell - even if such lifestyles were "evil" and such people were destined to Hell -- with the adulterers, sodomizers, and those who commit any sexual acts for reasons besides procreation -- STILL, what difference does that make to YOU? You should be happy not to share eternal life with such heathens... Of course, unless you were guilty, yourself.

Who's casting the first stone?

And you, leave Ben Affleck outta this! (Though hey, he and Matt Damon... Not that there's anything wrong with that... )

Oh, did you mean AFLAC...?

I strongly disagree with Gay marriage and/or two people of the same sex making love. It is just a shame to see even Pastors getting married.

In what kind of world are we living in ?

No, no actors. A real duck.

Then, I'll change my screen name to 'AppleQuacks'

Apple

Would sex change marriages still be legal?

1) Have you ever made love to someone of the same sex? I have always lived by the creed not to knock something 'till I've tried it...

2) You wouldn't want the Pastor of your church to promote love and committment to someone for life? You would not see him as a good example or role model? It is much safer to force someone into a life of celibacy? I have often thought they should let the Roman Catholic priests marry and have families, maybe they would resist the urges to play with young boys and girls. I mean c'mon! A lifetime of celibacy????!!!! People can commit to someone on Earth and still commit to God. Better than to feel repression and guilt over physical and emotional needs?

Well I guess the real question here is:
La Dolce Vita are you knocking it and have you tried it? Just joking, sorry

But, I have learned one think. Stay out of threads on Religion and Politics. But since we are talking SEX here and I am a young man with a sex drive, I thought I could post as long as I stay within the side subject limits!

Yo Horndog!!....

The answer to one of your questions is "no".

No, I do not knock it.

Hey, I am 38 years old. By this age, we all have experimented with something or another. I'll spare you the details in public though as people can be so judgemental. However FS, should we ever meet, we can swap stories over a couple of stiff cocktails.

You got it LDV. That you can bank on and the drinks will be on me!

What?! Are you crazy?! No, of course i haven't. However, at least I take into consideration that marriage is a right reserved for a man and a woman. How would a young boy react towards two gay guys or lesbians kissing each other? Where is the Sancticity of marriage? Homosexual relationships are therefore abnormal and unnatural, so they certainly shouldn't be validated by the state and recognized as a form of marriage. Take a look at the fact that Homosexuals do not and cannot lead to the creation of children, which is supposed to be the "natural" consequence of such intimate relationships, especially marriage. Therefore, gay marriage is the greatest moral and social evil.

Peace.

Vito The Godfather: #1 was pretty much a rhetorical question - only to make the point that personally I try not to judge things I know nothing about.

It is a little late to wonder how the kids are going to react - homosexuals have been able to adopt children for years now.

And for the record - I have been married (TO A MAN) for almost 17 years. While it may not be the most old-fashioned or traditional of unions, I do recognize and cherish the sanctity of our marriage.

Peace!

Vito: How about answering the questions I raised in my post? Please read it in its entirety, and answer the questions I asked, thuthfully.

And that goes for everyone.

HOPEFULLY, they'd act like mature human beings who have the compassion to let other people be without worrying about what THEY are doing (because YOU should be worrying about YOURSELF)... and, besides that, such a boy would often react in such a way as he's taught by his parental units: and if he's taught Hate and Prejudice, then hell, I know how he'd act: just like YOU!

A world in which two people who love each other should very well have the right to marry -- no matter their sex, age, race, color, creed, or anything else. God forbid, though, right?

Amen to Geoff's post. A-fuckin'-men.

A fucked up world loaded of mentally disturbed people having relationships with partners of the same goddamn sex.

Jesus Christ, so just because I personally think it is not right the Gay marriage issue, then YOU think my parents had taught me Hate and Prejudice? I just think it doesn't go right.

Nature has it that a man and a woman shall bear the beauty of creating life. Now if that same beauty of creating life were true for a man and a man or a woman and a woman then same sex relationships are fine with me! But nature dosent work that way and was not intended too, just as the sun does not rise in the west and set in the east.

Oh, so can a 9 year old boy already act maturely ?

Greater (bigger) evil than, say, murder? Is it bigger than adultry (over 50% of the population) or divorce (about 50% of the population)? Hmmm... "the greatest moral and social evil"... Wow, bigger than the 10 Commandments even... Damn, I had no idea...

I'm not picking on you, just the words you chose to use.

Yes, of course. What's this have to do with anything?

Here's another article I happened to find.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37443

It is wonderful to find people out there who are thinking exactly what I'm thinking, and yet can put it into words so much better than I ever could.

Of course, that's why they're paid to do it !!

Apple

Newsflash: There are loads of "mentally disturbed" people "fucking up the world" who are having sex with members of the OPPOSITE sex.

Instead of focusing so much on same sex couples CONSENSUALLY choosing to love each other and express their affection in ways that they choose, I would be more worried about rapists and pedophiles who TAKE what they want at the expense of hurting and emotionally scarring their victims. What is really fucking up MY world? Which of these scenarios am *I* afraid of????

Apple, again I read the article in it's entirety with an open mind. But one thing doesn't set well with me:

"What about bisexuals who love both men and women? Should they be denied the right to marry one of each? "

This is just crazy. There is an assumption that bi- and homo- sexuals are predatory and cannot be faithful to one partner. I know hetero men who find out a friend is gay and AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that they may be a "target" of said gay man's affection. That is like saying a hetero man is attracted to EVERY woman he meets. It is assumed bi- and homo- sexual people have no selective process in choosing a mate.

Therefore in the above quote, if we are talking about love, why would a bisexual person wish to marry two people (one of each)? It is possible - sure! - just as a man could WANT to marry a blonde woman and a brunette woman (one of each )and a woman would want to marry a corporate egg head man and a male athlete (to have one of each).

Of course in every controversial issue, there are going to be extreme examples. There ARE probably bisexual people who would want nothing more than to marry both a man and a woman. But I think we are just talking about same-sex unions across the board - couples who consensually live as life partners anyway and want the same benefits as hetero couples.

The constitution has become meaningless, there are so many clauses and exceptions to it, and with stupid judges aloud to do whatever they want, this act of allowing gay marriages is just lame. I have lost all trust in our consitution.

Thats all I have to say about that, MARRIAGE IS NOT BETWEEN 2 MEN!

Sure we are ... right now.

Dolce with all due respect - I'm sure you truly belive you're reading these articles with 'an open mind'. But in both cases, your responses indicate that you are not.

Beyond that, I'll let the articles speak for themselves.

Apple

Question: these problems have been going on for years and years. What made it come to a flash point now?

Why does it have to be made into a constitutional amendment? Aren't there other ways to solve these problems or give the people what they need without this amendment?


People live together all the time without being married and many things can be handled with a regular contract which is recognized my every court in every state in the country?

As always I hope that things are equal both ways for the good and for the bad. Things break up and they are under the same penalty as any other divorce couples. Straight or Gay.

Now on the other hand many Single people have always been hurt tax wise more then married couples and they haven't bitched. Anyone can get health insurance for anyone if they just pay the price. So what are the real issues here.

Is it that important to get a piece of paper from the government? Millions of live together people never have over the years? They live together learn to hate each other and move out and on with no strings. Hell, isn't a relationship bound just by what the two people involed feel about it.

Au contraire, I DO open my mind to other points of view. Thus why I only had exception with the one highlighted point in the article in which I expressed my viewpoint.

Ok, so this is not an issue about the acceptance of homosexuality in society. Granted.

But I have already discussed my views in support of traditional marriage - BUT - I also don't feel like people should be "labeled" or categorized in order to have the opportunity to reap the rewards of a lifetime of happiness and bliss with the partner of their CHOICE.

I have been saying all along maybe the answer is some kind of cohabitation agreement. Opponents say that an idea like that may cause regular friends to marry just to reap better insurance benefits for each other. Like that could not happen now with heterosexual friends? People cheat the system all the time. Not just the same sex couples.

If you get married on a beach by the Captain of a cruise ship....is that a true sacrament of marriage in the Church's eyes? Is a wedding at the Drive Up Wedding Chapel in Vegas a "real" marriage? Can Britney Spears now claim she has been married once before after HER little drunken Vegas fiasco?

"Traditional" marriage has had a lot of gray areas for a long time. Same sex unions make up a relatively small percent of the gray area right now.

Now THAT I agree with; problem is, some have already admitted that it is not enough.

Yesterday in NY, many gay couples were turned down for marriage licenses. The tagline of the day was that all went in with smiles and came out in tears, holding a piece of paper outlining some form of that 'cohabitation agreement'. They want to be MARRIED. One woman being interviewed for the radio news cried something to the effect of, 'How can they disregard our personal feelings...'.

Apple

Marriage licenses will be like automobile ones. Class 1 Class 2 , commercial, ECT. Each allowing you to do different things and have different rights.

Vito The Godfather -- everyone stereotypes and typecasts homosexuals as sex craved beasts who just want some dick. Get off it, because they're people just like you and I... They just have different taste in people than we do. Just because their taste varies, doesn't mean their sex drive does. Just because they're gay, doesn't mean they're always out looking for a lay and always in gay bars stripping. That's stereotypes. And most of them really are great human beings.

So, again, there's no reasons they shouldn't have the same rights we do. Discluding someone from something because of what they are is prejudice, weather you'd like to believe it or not.

Don Pope -- of course a man and a woman are to breed... But there's really enough of that going on. The world is heading towards over-population. I can see if homosexuals were outnumbering heterosexuals by the millions and the birth rate was going down. But the birth rate is actually climbing up and there's millions of new babies being born every week. I'm sure the small percent of homsexual population won't ruin it for the rest of us. They aren't killing our human race -- there's plenty of new people being brought into our world. And that, my friend, is just a poor excuse to disclude gays from marriage.

Even so, a homosexual getting married won't change that they won't breed anyhow. So let them. They deserve rights like you and I.

Jeez plawrence look what you started!

Back to your original question: Should there be a constitutional amendment? Here is the Preamble to the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Interesting words "a more perfect Union" Can there really be something "more perfect?" I suppose Pres. Bush is proposing an amendment under the "insure domestic Tranquility" guideline.

Keep in mind the Bill of Rights are in the Constitution. So on that basis, I think an amendment regarding marriage would be consistent with a Bill of Rights. I don't think the States should have different rules or laws for marriage. The institution is more universal than unique to the demographics of an individual State.

Now, whether same sex marriage should be allowed? Thats another debate. I'm a hetero supporter. Our country has too many exceptions to the rules. Our standards of morality and quality life are constantly compromised in the name of freedom of speech or "its my right." Respect for one another and the dignity of an individual have become "old-fashioned." I'm for keeping it simple. There are Ten Commandments. If you follow them, you can't get in trouble. Come to think of it, our Constitution was based on them. Go figure.

I dont know why I chose to be silent from this thread but for some reason I did.

The town of New Paltz is like 5 minutes from my house. I drive through there all the time.

I have also met the mayor, the one that is starting all this shit. Hes a pretty cool guy. Doesnt seem like he is a mayor. Just thougth I would share that.

Doesn't act like he's a Mayor, either.
I guess he thought he'd take 'cool' to new heights.

Apple

O dont get me wrong...

I am as conservative on this gay marriage shit as anybody. dont think Im tight with this guy or anything.

ragging:

Isn't New Paltz a college town (SUNY-New Paltz)? Or is the town bigger with the Univerity only a small part? Also, I've heard they have a top ranking dance and drama program. Therefore, perhaps such a liberal Mayor is really representing his consituency well.

He certainly is...since his consituency is obviously interested in breaking the law.

And ragingbull2003: I didn't mistake your post to mean you agree, or are 'tight with' this guy; only that you met him and he's pretty cool, just like you say.

Incidentally, I heard the New Paltz Mayor do a radio interview last Sunday, and I agree that he certainly did seem, cool, levelheaded and concerned for his 'people'. He seemed to be doing what he's doing as a matter of the heart. That's really nice except that the fact is he was defying the law. He seemed a little more indignant over this past week, once he was served papers and yet vowed to marry more gay couples over the coming weekend...unless advised otherwise by his attorneys.

I haven't yet heard what they advised him.

Apple

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anthony Lombardi:

"Don Pope -- of course a man and a woman are to breed... But there's really enough of that going on. The world is heading towards over-population. I can see if homosexuals were outnumbering heterosexuals by the millions and the birth rate was going down. But the birth rate is actually climbing up and there's millions of new babies being born every week. I'm sure the small percent of homsexual population won't ruin it for the rest of us. They aren't killing our human race -- there's plenty of new people being brought into our world. And that, my friend, is just a poor excuse to disclude gays from marriage."

My argument had nothing to do with population at all, I was stating that nature intended a male and a female to be together, thats why together they have the power of creating a life. As in if nature intended homosexual and lesbian to be together they would be granted the power to create a life as well.

Um....no.

By your logic, infertile couples are not eligible to "be together".

My husband has had a vasectomy.

I am also not able to get pregnant.

He is a man. I am a woman. But nature does not allow us to procreate anymore. Should we not be together? Or will you say that as a man and a woman, though we have outlived our usefullness we are exempt from your nature rule?

Homosexuality has been alive and well for centuries. It is only in the last century that people have been able to express themselves. Would society be better off if those people kept themselves hidden from view? I'd be more worried about people expressing themselves through child pornography than worrying about what two consenting adults do with each other.

Something I read today: The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.

A homosexual has the power to create life. Actually, a lot of them donate sperm. They have the ability to create life -- they just choose not to. They choose to be with the same sex... That doesn't mean they "don't have the ability." They can't do it together -- but they can with donations. Some handicapped/retarded people can't breed, so I guess we should banish them from marriage, too, right? Give me a break. They very well can reproduce -- and some do -- but some choose not to. That's their own choice and they're free to make it.

And Amen, LDV!!! Nicely put. Said like a true prodigy.

its also not natural to donote sperm, but my point is god and nature did not intend lesbians and gays to be together not giving them the abilty to create life. I see your having trouble understanding the point. You have a head right? lets say that your head when used naturally and normally for thinking, processing info,etc etc. That represents straight people, now when you use your head to bang it against the wall using it as a hammer, which is not what your head is intended to do, and that represents gays,lesbians. just like nature did not intend two males and two females to be together. My example is bad, i know, but it shows my point.

Yes, your example makes no sense because it's pointless. Just because two people cannot reproduce doesn't mean they are wrong or unnatural. They actually COULD create life. You're missing MY point which is they JUST DON'T CHOOSE TO. Some people don't want children... I guess they're wrong and unnatural and shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? How 'bout no. Gays can't change what they are -- they don't choose to be gay, but they are, it's genetical. They can go out and create life if they wanted to, but they don't. Some even do, just to reproduce. As I said earlier, some handicapped/retarded people cannot reproduce, that doesn't make them "wrong" and it shouldn't mean they aren't allowed to marry. Read LDV's post... It proves your theory about reproduction wrong.

uhh how can you compare handicapped people to gays? anyways im just stating my opinion on the matter, dont get your pants all up in a bunch. I hope i havent offended you, cuz now i understand your situation. you could have atleast said something. I didn't think their would be any gay people on the board. GAYNESS IS WRONG AND ABSURD, IF THEY WANNA BE GAY THEY SHOULD MOVE TO THE MOON AND THEY MARRY EACH OTHER ALL THEY WANT. SEE HOW LONG THEIR CIVILIZATION WILL LAST

um...yes

you dont get the point, GOD MADE MAN AND WOMAN. GOD MADE THE MAN HAVE A PENIS. GOD MADE THE WOMAN A VAGINA. GOD INTENDED THE PENIS TO GO INTO THE VAGINA. GOD DID NOT MAKE THE PENIS GO INTO THE PENIS. GOD DID NOT MAKE THE VAGINA GO INTO THE VAGINA. DO YOU SEE THE POINT? THEY WERE NOT MADE TO INTERACT TO THE SAME SEX. by the way i dont care about ur personal life, im stating my opinion, either like or not,i dont care. and a vesectomy isnt a natural thing either so the dosent fit into the equation.

Are you calling me gay? I thought I was out of second grade.

your thoughts are yours, not mine, so i wouldnt know

Grow up. This isn't second grade; calling people "gay" when they disagree with you is so 1993.

well when i posted my opinion you got so defensive about it, what am i supposed to think? your telling me posting my opinion is wrong, when your here trying to say **** marrying is not wrong??? WHATS THIS WORLD COMING TO!!!!! by the way i think you should grow up. "is so 1993" statement of the year! thats mature.

"WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO THINK?" That's the most naive excuse I've ever heard in my entire life. And why did I get defensive? Because people like you, who are extremely ignorant, are prejudice of people because of something they can't help -- but you're so blind you can't even begin to realize it. Gays are people, too, and I have alot of gay friends. For people like you to try to strip them of their rights because they aren't more like you is pathetic. Does that make me gay? No. But what if I was? You'd probably go on a tantrum telling me how I shouldn't have the same rights as you because my preferences differ.

By the way, the consistent laughing faces are annoying -- and they don't make you look any smarter.

And how is telling you a stupid statement you made was popular ten years ago and that it's old not mature? Riiight.

HAHA!! nice come back, a 10 year old could do better than that. Well if your so Pro-gay make a sign, grab some of your gay buddies and march down your street, i seriously dont give a shit. i stated my opinion once and then you who is being the ignorant one is sayin MY opinion is wrong and go about insulting me. unlike you i got better things to do then argue over the internet about shit that you cant do nothin about. have a nice night

Out of you two, Cheeks is the only one who actually made a point.

what´s the big problem with have and open mind, it´s not a sin to accept people as it and that´s not make u gay or whatever , only mature.

out of me and him, I DONT REMEMBER FUCKIN TALKIN TO YOU!

Wow, do you think using "fuck" to modify words in 90% of your posts makes you look smart or cool. Grow up. You were tolerable and now you are acting like a brat. Grow up and read the posting rights, you have no copyright to a thread.

Nice "come back?" I didn't realize I was making a "come back." I was getting my point across. Ten year olds are the ones who make "comes backs" because that's a term used for retaliating in an insult/cracking battle. Last time I checked, I wasn't the one making pointless insults because your opinion was disagreed upon.

If you haven't noticed yet, this thread is a DEBATE thread. What do you do in debates? You...debate; you argue. You're the one getting all defensive because I called you on your belief. If you don't wanna get caught up in an argument, don't post in a thread when we're all...arguing/debating. If you choose to post here, then take the chances of getting into a debate.

Don Pope better calm the hell down. This thread was a mature discussion, with mature people, who could actually put together some well-thought-out opinions (on both sides of the issue) w/o the use of childish language and 4-letter words. Stop it. Now.

I suggest people ignore such posts.

The population of New Paltz is like 90% college kids. The college is literally the center of the town. But that is what makes it such a great town. There is so much fun shit to do there. Personally, i think this mayor is only doing this for his 15 minutes of fame.

Yeah, and usually those rapists and pedophiles are old fucked up motherfuckers getting little boys of their same sex and fucking them in the ass. Doctors do it a lot. So they are gay. They all should be ELIMINATED.

Yeah, and usually those rapists and pedophiles are old fucked up motherfuckers getting little boys of their same sex and fucking them in the ass. Doctors do it a lot. They all should be ELIMINATED.

I am more than perfectly willing to sacrifice morality in the name of freedom of speech. 'Cause once we start compromising that, we're in deep trouble. Morality is something that can't be legislated. Everyone had their own ideas about what is "moral" and what isn't, and I don't want the government deciding for me by way of constitutional ammendments, or any other laws for that matter. As long as one's actions don't interfere with me or anyone else, why should I care what people do?

I think I said in another post in this thread, something like:

First, let's ban same-sex marriage; it's immoral.
Then, let's ban same-sex sexual relations, since that must also be immoral.
Next, we can ban sex outside of marriage, since many consider that immoral as well.
And also, let's ban all types of sexual relations that some of our more extreme moralists are against, i.e. anal sex, oral sex, etc.
And, now that I think about, while we're at it let's ban the performance of the sexual act in anything but the missionary position.

And I guess we'll need "sex police" to arrest the offenders.

Yeah, I know, it sounds ridiculous. But remember the slippery slope. If the religious right ran the country, we'd be on our way to the above.


Let's do a constitutional ammendment banning adultery. Then we can put half the adult population of the United States in jail

I'm no expert, of course, but I don't believe that gay men attempt to have sex by having one man try to insert his penis into another man's penis. Nor do I believe that there are any females out there attempting mutual vagina insertion.

That said, may we assume that since you believe the penis, when in use as a sexual organ, is meant only to be inserted in a vagina, (and not a hand) that you have never masturbated?

Plaw, I'm convinced people are so rigidly convinced that their opinion is "right" that they cannot even read or understand posts that contain reason and logic, let alone address them.

Ahh well.

Well, when we're at the bottom of the slippery slope, I'm gonna apply for a job with the Sex Police. At least I'll get to watch all the things I'm no longer allowed to do.

You're right and Don Pope also negates oral sex

The point i was trying to make is that if a man and a man were ment to mingle they would have some sort of reproductive organ and be able to give birth, fortunately for me i dont need to use my hand all the time

But there needs to be a base point for what is moral to be established.

Some may find it morally acceptable to marry more than one individual or a minor. I think there are laws prohibiting both. The laws against having more than one spouse and marrying a minor are based on what is moral. Like it or not most laws of the land are based on morality.

im talking about nature as its intended, im not talkin about all the other ways to pleasure one, yes thats true theres oral sex and using your hand but Naturally god intended for the penis to insert the vagina. No one atleast gets it one bit?? seriously?

What do you use instead?. I've heard of sofa stories.

shutup turi, you know what i mean. and it has nothing to do with Self-pleasuring.

Maybe "God" intended some guys to be attracted to guys. The fact is, we have gay people in this world. What is the problem. It is not unnatural, it happens with all species of animals. Unnatral happenings are things like the Chernobyl disaster etc.

the funny thing is i dont even care that much if its banned or not, i stated my opinion a page or so away just for the hell of it, then that lombardi character got annoying so i got all into it.

Hahaha, you just love to keep mentioning me, don't you?

As I've explained before -- this is a debating issue, if you DO NOT WISH TO DEBATE OR "get into it" THEN DON'T POST HERE. Stop being such a baby and acting like a victim. Posting in this thread, you're now at risk to get into a debate with someone whose opinion differs from yours. But I guess you still haven't gotten that yet.

And I'm sick of this "well, that's the way God made it" excuse. It's so piled up with bullshit that it's just overflowing with assumptions. How do you all know what God meant to be? 'Cause men and women can reproduce? So what? This excuse is so over-played and so lazy. Let's all blame our problems on the way "God intended it to be" yet we've never even met the Man; and most of us don't know for sure if He exists. Not saying I don't believe in Him -- I do -- just stating a point. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman weren't "meant to be together" 'cause they can't "reproduce" then why would God have made them homosexual; the way they are? Exactly, he wouldn't have. Gays don't choose to be gay, it's been proven it's genetical. Just because they can't reproduce that doesn't mean they're "not meant to be." They are able and willing to love each other and THAT'S WHAT COUNTS. Since they are capable of loving each other, then I guess they ARE meant to be. Homosexuals having the right and power to mutual love is all that matters; not if they can breed or not. Why don't we stop trying to stop people from getting the same rights we do just because they're different?

huh? your STILL bickering? you basically just said my opinon is bullshit, after you said awhile back that im ignorant for saying yours was bullshit. GET A LIFE MAN, seriously, go away, do something! GOD DAMN your like a nat at a BBQ. You cant seem to get over it. You think my opinions bullshit COOL, go tell you mom and dad about it, i dont care what you have to say.

im trying to respect J geoff and SC by ignoring you, but your the one who keeps goin on and on.

Hey, buddy -- THIS IS A DEBATING THREAD. LEAVE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT. "Bickering" I am not -- replying to statements made by other people in our debate I am. If you don't wanna hear it, run along. You're telling people to "stop debating" in a debating thread. Go figure.

And my statement says your's was "bullshit?" It pretty much proved it wrong. Maybe you can slap two brain cells together and form a reply that's worthwhile and might actually say something against mine rather than the tiresome "OMG STOP REPLYING IN A DEBATE THRED"

Sorry, I'm not going "on and on." I was basically replying and agreeing with was Plawrence said. I never said "DON POPE UR WRONG" I'm not a brat like you.

He was talking about IGNORING YOU, just to let you know.

Hes still goin and goin! YEA! lets see if we can get our post count up. Like seriously does it bother you that much? let it go man, let it go...

Yep, exactly what I thought. No actual responses to anything I said -- just pointless bickering about OFF TOPIC subjects.

Please, if you don't wanna hear "bickering" I suggest you leave a thread about debating. Seriously.

im not even reading your posts, im just waiting for you stop bitching. Ill tell ya what go into the chatroom when you get this.

OK, just like in the other thread - STOP THIS SHIT NOW!!

Do not reply with "He started it", or "Its not MY fault". Just stop it NOW!

This is the problem I have. Gay couples cannot reproduce, but they are acquiring children through surrogates and adoption. This is a new area and we do not know what the results will be. Generations from now we will begin to understand the results of children that are raised in a gay household. Is your sexual preference really in your gene's or can it be a product of the enviorment that you are raised in. Children of Firemen become Firemen, Children of antisemites become antisemites, Chiildren of Alcoholics become Alcoholics. It is just food for thought.

I do believe that same sex couple's should be entitled to the same civil right's that married couple's have. But these right's should also be extended to others types of couples.

Elderly widows looking for companionship.
A Single parent taking care of an adult child.
An adult taking care of an aging parent.

There are plenty of different couple's out there. We don't need to change the meaning of words for all of them.

I don't think living in a gay household turns you gay. Because, as I said before, it's already been proven to be genetical. If you don't have the gene, you can't just turn gay -- you don't choose to. And environment doesn't really seem like a way to change your sexuality. Your job, sure -- because you look at your dad and go "I wanna be like him." You idolize your father. Alcoholism? That's a disease/disorder -- they run in genes and the blood. But you don't say "hey, I wanna be gay like my father." As long as they're a good parent and teach their son or daughter morals, then I see no problem with it.

But we don't know for sure. I would have to think that many of these children will be swayed based on what they know. Also children can be terrible while you are growing up. Gosh when I was growing up other kids gave you a hard time if you had cheap sneakers or did,nt dress right. How are these Children(Gay Household) going to be treated by their peers. They are going to be alot of children with alot of issues.

I don't think living in a gay household turns you gay because there have been many cases thus far where two gay parents bring up a child/children. If it did change their sexuality, I'm sure there would be alot more talk about it. It's been going on for a while now, and no cases have been cited. I'm sure if someone being raised by gay parents turned gay themselves, it would be on the news, the radio, in the papers -- and alot more about it would be heard within this gay marriage subject. It hasn't happened -- and it's not a disorder or disease or something you idolize or are brought up on -- so I'm lead to believe it doesn't change your sexuality or else we'd have heard of it by now. Catch my drift?

It's good to have a mature discussion about this subject.

i´m agree with that, is truth about the genetic component in homosexuality, but also is truth the important roll of the ambient in people´s decisions and beliefs, human being exist in a social ambient ,is a social animal, have relationships ,conections with others of its same species, but i´d not belive in the fact about all the kids with parents of the same sex, have to be gay , alcoholic, junkie or whatever in all the cases.

And also -- very rarely, so far, has it been shown that personal relationships have caused homosexuality or that people's surroundings are connected with homosexuality. Not very often do we find a gay person with all their surroundings and friends and environment being gay; leading us to believe it was a trigger. It just doesn't happen too much, and certainly not nearly enough for us to believe that it's the cause and effect.

yeah truth, my point was about the important of social roll in people, u know , not only in homosexuality ,in all things, i´m agree with u, parents with the same sex don´t means a future gay.

I do catch your drift but you may be refering to grown children either adopted or in a foster home. What I mean by a child raised in a gay household is;

A baby raised from birth by two same sex parents. I don't think there are many cases of this type of child that are currently of adult age now. I am not one to say let's wait & see what happens with these children. I do not have faith in society when it come to this. I do believe that it could be done right but for every sucess there is the potential for many broken lives.

It's good to have a mature discussion about this.

Knock on Wood

Also we are talking about possibilities. The child of the Alcoholic can also be a causual drinker that devotes there life to working with people in AA.

Minors need laws to protect them because they are just that--minors. That's why we have statuatory rape laws. The thinking is that a minor can't give consent because they are a minor. It has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. It's for the minor's protection. That's why young minors are not allowed to drink, drive, vote, etc. To protect them from themslves and to protect everyone else from them.

As far as laws against more than one spouse are concerned, they are based, I believe, on religion rather than morality.

The Mormons wish to be polygamous, but our Judeo-Christian societal "morals" don't allow it. Well, there are other religions and cultures that have no problem with polygamy, so who are we to declare it immoral?

If a bunch of adults decides, consensually, that they wish to live this way, WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE? Who are they hurting? Certainly not me. Just like same-sex couples who wish to marry.

As a matter of fact, the idea is not unappealing

Another point is -- have you ever seen kids around their parents? They're absolutely appauled at seeing their parents' romantic life; they think it's disgusting to see their parents kissing or even giving them advice. Children/teenagers usually take advice and adapt from their FRIENDS and people outside their family. They rarely ever grow as their parents are, they don't want to even hear about their parents' sex life... So I doubt they'd learn from people they don't really even want to hear about when it comes to this subject.

yeah good point anthony, is truth kids and teenagers don´t share that kind of things with the parents or talk about it,in almost all the cases, but like u say, they talk with their friends or others about it and that´s social conections help them, to create its own belifs and to make desicions in the future.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. It's for the minor's protection.
[/QUOTE]

At one time it was morally acceptable for minors to marry. In fact Mary the Mother of Jesus was thirteen when she gave birth to Jesus

[/QUOTE]
If a bunch of adults decides, consensually, that they wish to live this way, WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE? Who are they hurting? Certainly not me. Just like same-sex couples who wish to marry.
[/QUOTE][/QB][/QUOTE]

I agree but when they want to change the meaning of a well established institution. I don't agree.

Why is murder against the law? It is morally wrong is'nt it

What you are referring to is pre-puberty adoulecance behavior. What I am talking about will happen years prior to that. Let me ask you two questions.

1.At what age were you when you can remember that man & women marry as husband and wife?

2. At what age were you when you first heard of homosexuality?

I was young at both ages -- but even in the late-teen years, such as 16-17, children/teens STILL don't adapt to their parents. They adapt to what's going around in platonic/friendship surroundings. You develop homosexuality at a early-teen age, and that's a time when you're not really all that into the surroundings in your family. At no point when you're in the development age is it normal for children to adapt as to their parents, it's always outside of the family.

So are you saying that your sexuality is developed during your teen years outside you family envoirment.

There's no developing outside your genes -- your genes determine your sexuality. My point is surroundings don't change your sexuality. But when you do discover your homosexual [for homosexuals] it's moreso in the younger teen years [14-15-16], when kids don't adapt to their parents and they moreso do with their friends. Genes is the main reason -- their surroundings is just a second reason and more offered proof.

i think that it is a mix of both things, because human being has sexuality from the birth and the experiences during all those years are forming the way to be related around the sexuality .

See I definitly think that your prefrences can be influenced. I don't dissagree with it being pre-ordained with your genes, but there are quite a few undecided individuals out there waiting to be influenced.

The point of my two questions was based on exposure to one envoirment for a number of years prior to learning about the other prefrence. I would assume that most children learn of marriage from observing there mommy & daddy from the point they learn to do everthing. There is probbibly a span of well over 10 years before that individual is introduced to and understands homosexuality.

Reverse the scales, does that child turn out the same being subjected to mommy & mommy or daddy & daddy day after day.

Also your genetic point is well taken. How many individual are influenced to think they are straight because of the enviorment that they are raised in only to be confused and learn at a later in life what there true sexual prefrence is.

There are many things that are morally wrong that are against the law
But that's not the reason these things are against the law.

The reason is that acts such as murder interfere with the rights of others. The morality is incidental.

Isn't adultery morally wrong? It's not against the law.
Isn't it against the law to drive through a stop sign? There's nothing "morally" wrong with that.

I agree with Don Pope. God made us men so we can put our banana on the girl's puppy, and not put it on another man's nasty hairy ass.

God also made everyone with two ears, two eyes, and one mouth. The intent being to listen and observe twice as much as you speak. I recommend more in your case.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

You know I wouldn't believe half of this if I didn't read this myself.

Sad times when some people think the way they do.
I think it is the closed minds and that their one thought is the only real way things should be.

Please elaberate, your comment is vague. You are not refrencing a particular comment. So what is the half you would'nt believe

Lombardi, I hold the same belief with you about same sex marriages, I have no problem with them. But you are going to have to show me proof that homosexuality is genetically passed on. You’ve said it’s proven numerous times throughout this thread but I really need a source before I can believe that. It’s the old Nature V’s Nurture debate.

There is a lot of evidence to show particular sexualities are learned. For example fetishes and to an extent paedophilia (which doesn’t need to be addressed because it is has no correlation with homosexuality). People develop fetishes due to some unconscious repressed memory they have of their childhood – sometimes it is very conscious. I studied gender development and identity about 4 years ago in psychology but I can’t remember much of it now.

If I find some old notes and studies I'll be sure to let you know.

I'm against some of them. It pisses me off when a guy turns into a woman and a woman turns into a guy. God made you a man or a woman for a reason. If a gay guy and another gay guy or a gay woman and another gay woman want to get married, so be it. As long as they keep away from me, do their "stuff" behind closed doors, and don't turn transvestite, then I'm fine with it. -Pat

Turi, as far as I know a "gay gene" has yet to be discovered. However, genetics seems to play some part in it...

Although from a Catholic site, this page is helpful trying to understand how complex this is:

Science doesn't know for sure (yet) if people are necessarily "born gay" (hense the debate), but the consensus so far seems to be that there is a mix of nature and environment. Perhaps some are born w/ a predisposition to be gay and some environmental factors cause the "gay switch" to be turned on.

What's most important, however, is the fact that one does not CHOOSE to be homosexual -- so it really doesn't matter if it's genetic. Being homosexual isn't a choice one makes, just like being born a particular race isn't.

As such, and specifically relating to the original question, I don't think a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be much different than a law that would, say, ban marriage among members of a particular race.

The only "choice" a homosexual gets to make is whether to ACT upon his sexuality. And to not, as the religious right would love them to do, would be denying who they are.

This is an entirely different issue.

BTW - Transvestites aren't necessarily gay. From what I hear, most aren't. Transvestism means you wear clothing designed for the oppposite sex, by the way. I think you meant transexuals.

im not against homosexuals at all, just as long as they leave me alone, so if they wanna get married let them

Daigo Mick Friend -- you think a preference can be influenced, I don't; that's where opinion and not fact lies. There have been no occurances where someone turns homosexual due to gay parents. If there have been, as I said, there would be so much talk about it, it would be unbelievable. If your parents are an element in your sexuality, then there would be so many more cases and it would be publicly made known. But there have been none. If there were, you know as well as I it'd be all over the news, intwined in this gay marriage issue.

Vito The Godfather -- that statement has been discussed before... And it was also very immature. If you're going to debate in here, do it correctly and with maturity -- and not childish references.

Turi -- for one, I hear these studies on the news and in newspaper. I don't read my news online so I wouldn't know where to show these sites, because it's not where I hear them. I hear it/see it on the news. I'm sure Geoff's link would be helpful.

As for the fetish statement -- homosexuality is not a fetish, and a sexuality is not a fetish, nor is pedaphilia. Fetishes may be developed out of past experiences or environments, but then again fetishes don't come from genes and sexuality is a big departure/difference from it.

My point is that this is all new territory. Gay couples raising children is really in it's infancy. Remeber homosexuals have not been out of the closet that long so these occurances that you refer to don't exist. It will take generations to see the results. And yes I think a childs prefrence can be influenced by how their parents raises them.

Nah, dude, it's really not "new territory." Gay couples have been raising children for a while now. Maybe not in record numbers -- but they have, none-the-less. But, I really don't think gay couples getting married has anything to do with them raising children. More gay marriages do not equal more gay couples raising children. If a gay couple wants to raise a child, they will adopt one weather they are married or not -- so it's all basically irrelevant.

And even if they "turned gay" [which I find to be impossible], what's the problem if they are gay? This whole topic/subject has to do with accepting homosexuals and giving them equal benefits.

I have to call you on this one. where are these couples getting these children. What is a while a few years. Do you know how hard it is to adopt a child when you are not married. Everyone is not like Rosie O'Donnel with tens of millions of dollars at her finger tips. And don't tell me about lesbians having there own children because that has not been going on for a while.

How can some of you people say that your not against gay people, and then say you don't want to be around them?

I don't believe gay marriage for pretty much the same reasons as Don Pope. I'm not trying to be immature it's just its true. Two members of the same sex are just not meant interact with one another. I also don’t believe you are born gay or you have no choice in weather you are gay or not because you can, in lack of better words, not be gay.

But my opinion isn't really important... what is important is if we should be living in a free country, which we are, gays' should be allowed to live as they please, and get the same rights as everyone else. You shouldn’t deny peoples' rights just because you don't believe what they are doing. It doesn't hurt us at all, so why should anyone be unwilling to give them the same rights?

I should stay away from guys at school because interacting with them is wrong? j/k

I think you know what he meant. -Pat

I think you know I was kidding.

Daigo Mick Friend -- as I said, it hasn't been happening in record numbers, but it has been happening. And if there was even ONE instance where someone's sexuality changed because of their parents, you know we'd know about it in no time at all. It'd hit the news like a storm. But it hasn't happened at all -- not even once have we heard about it. That's enough to suggest it just isn't possible.

And you didn't seem to reply to any of my other points, dude... Gay couples getting married does not mean they'll be raising more children. If a gay couple wants to raise a child, they'll raise one regardless if they're married or not. Every gay couple is NOT going to automatically start raising children just because they get married. They don't have much to do with each other and are, again, irrelevant.

But, I quote as earlier --

Robert CK -- again, this has been discussed before. Back up and read the debate where we went over this before. Though, I do commend you on the maturity to admit gays should have the same rights as we do. And I tip my hat at the fact you were able to do it without immaturity.

How can some of you people say that your not against gay people, and then say you don't want to be around them?

I think that's people's inner homophobia. They don't want to be near them, because like everyone else, they stereotype homosexuals as sex craved queers who are always looking for dick.

As we've said before, though -- two homosexuals are capable of loving each other, so maybe that's a sign they are meant to love each other and be together? You can take their difference [or in this case, similarity] in sex organs/reproduction as a sign as they're "not meant to be" or you can take the fact that they can love each other as a sign they are meant to be. Who's to say what's "meant to be" or not? Why should we [or in this case, you and all who share your opinion] have the power so say so? You're ASSUMING it's not meant to be because of a inference you picked up. That doesn't make it correct, it's just a belief -- you shouldn't be able to dictate people's benefits or sexuality or love because of an inference you made. I realize you said gays should be able to marry and have those rights -- but your beliefs speak otherwise and it's led others to say the opposite. They just kind of contradict. Know what I mean?

The reason I brought up fetishes was because they are usually triggered due to a childhood experience and they help determine sexual orientation. Which means what you are attracted too. It may or may not be appropriate to assume the same for homosexuality – it’s just a theory but a well deserved one that deserves attention. JG, stepped in and made a good point also that NOTHING has been proven. That’s the main point of my original response. You simply can’t make sweeping statements that something has been proved with proof. You try that with an exam paper and it’s out of the window – fail. Sorry, but that’s basically why I can’t accept that sweeping statement.

You’re right Paedophilia is not, I repeat is not, the same as homosexuality. Anyone who says otherwise is an absolute idiot. But I feel some of the fundamentals of the development of paedophilia could be appropriate and similar to the development of homosexuality. For example, most paedophiles were abused as children. Again I am NOT associating paedophilia with homosexuality but maybe something with as significant importance happened to a person that helped trigger the homosexuality.

Like JG says though, for it to be triggered it may already be there (through genes). I’m just offering perfectly substantial critique

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. - Just messing before someone takes me seriously.

C'mon guys, lets all get naked and cuddle, explore our masculinity. Fuck, I know some of the hardest rugby players you'd ever meet and they're comfortable with their own sexuality (plus they'd destroy anyone who said otherwise).

This thread is really moving off-topic because the question is about a constitutional amendment, not about how one personally feels about homosexuality.

As suggested earlier, I too would guess there are a good number of people in the US that don't like interracial marriages, but few would reasonably argue for a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. They are different questions.

Sure this is just an election year political football. If anyone thinks the constitution will ever get amended over this, I would love to make a wager against you, and take your money!

There's no written evidence that I have that says it's been absolutely proven that it's genetical -- but I'm calling it how I've heard it. I've heard from the news [which is a reliable source] that it has been proven. I didn't read it off a site, so I can't cite any places where I have read it since I haven't, as I said earlier. I'm saying I've heard it's proven -- and I also think so, as well -- so when I say it's been proven it's with reasonable judgement.

Your theory/opinion is something you can research or follow up with -- I just don't think it's possible for something to trigger it because of all the statements I've already made. Homosexuals aren't victims -- they're normal people. You fellas are making it sound like they're diseased animals or rape victims -- they're normal people who just prefer a different sex than the majority! All my homosexual/bisexual friends have led completely normal lives -- which is enough for me to come to the logical conclusion [along with everything else I've stated various times] that something doesn't trigger it -- that it's genetical; something they can not help.

DonsAdvisor -- I agree! We've gotten completely off subject. We've gone from arguing over the ban of gay marriages to if homosexuality is genetical or if it's meant to be or what not. I do think they are elements to be discussed since they have significance and involvement... But, please...

Let's get back on subject.

Sure, I think we have been over that subject about homosexuality many times before and most get locked up sooner or later. This one has been well mannered though, is there hope for us all?

Maybe there is, FS! There was a bit of trouble caused by close-mindedness and immaturity earlier -- but it's been straightened out and for now it seems the discussion has been smooth and very honorable, as well as mature. Let's keep our fingers crossed!

Now i know your not talkin about me

I'm talking about the general point that the thread turned into a wrong direction earlier.

We just got it to a respectful and mature point -- let's not ruin it with a pointless argument.

Anyhow, back on topic.

thats what i thought

Yep. Me = scared.

C'mon now... don't start this up again

Hahaha, we're/I'm not. I won't let it.

The reason some are seeking a ban or an ammendmant banning same sex marriage is because the word marriage has been miss -interpreted. I have a Dictionary that’s about 10 years old. The word marriage is defined simply between a man & women. Today I looked up the word on Websters.com and it does include same sex as part of the meaning to marriage. Scary that the meaning of a word can be changed like that. Same sex couples sharing a life together is a practice that is generally accepted today in all facets of life. But these individuals are not only seeking acceptance but approval.


My first post in this thread indicated that gay couples should be given the same legal, civic right and benefits that married couples receive. Overall I have put alot of thought on where I stand on this issue. The link that Apple posted a few pages back helped me understand my position. Sometimes you do have to strip things down to their simplest forms.
Again I repeat that same sex couples should be given the same benefits extended to married couples. I respect there right to share their life together with someone, but when they want to call that marriage and validate it by having approval by the government or a place of worship that is where I draw the line. They want to change the meaning of an institution that has been around for over two thousand years because of their alternative lifestyle. And that is what it is an Alternative Lifestyle.

It’s not normal, it’s wrong, it’s not what God intended, and it’s not the way it is supposed to be are reasons used by those against same sex marriage. These simple reasons have been considered ignorant in today’s PC friendly world. These same reasons have been gathered and locked in same closet that these same sex avengers came crashing out of.

Marriage is between Man & Women and has been well defined and around well before Jesus walked the planet. Marriage is the foundation for society and every culture here on earth. Marriage by no means is perfect. Its sanctity has continually been threatened by divorce, adultery, and citizenship marriage, just to name a few. It does not need anything else to erode it. I thought that legal partnership would be the answer but apparently they did this 10 years ago in Sweden and the marriage rate has declined and un-wed mother rate has increased.

I don’t know what the answer is but I do know that people overall should think about the long-term affect of their decisions. It’s really easy to make a quick decision based on how it affects your small circle in life. But there is more, there is a bigger picture and people need to be responsible and accountable for the actions.

Lombardi one final point regarding children- Every child brought into this world has a mother and a father. I know that it doesn’t work out that way sometimes later in life but like it or not that the way it is meant to be, that’s how God intended it to be, that’s normal. As far as I know there is no Alternative way to create a life.

I would argue that that is not the topic/subject either. The real point is this: the President is trying to establish some sort of political issue out of something that has no business being one.

Let states decide who can marry, as they always have. The government was not delegated this power in the Constitution, and there is no reason that it should be amended to allow it. Are gays really threatening anyone's rights? No, but the government is.

Nor was the governemtn given any power to decide what is morally right and wrong in this country. So not only is the "solution" illogical (the unnecessary amendment), but so is the "problem" (gays marrying). Who does it hurt to give two gays the right to be married?!

This is nothing more than a political move by the President who is attempting to get all of the bigots and homophobes on his side. It is much like him addressing steroid use in baseball in the State of the Union. It was out of place, and certainly not his decision to make. He is simply trying to get people on his side behind the facade that he is an everyman who wants to clean up everything, including the American Passtime. He is obsessed with his Patriotic Image!

Well I am not only a baseball purist but a bigot and a homophobe as well. And he ain't getting my vote, because I can see through his petty campaign strategy.

Perfect. There are other problems in this country that need to be addressed but are overlooked.

Hey, U.S., you got two choices.

1. Overlook all moral issues and focus on governing, as you were meant to do.

2. Face all moral issues and become a totalitarian government, as set forth by the Patriot Act.

Either way, make up your mind so that I can decide wether to stay here (1) or move to Europe (2).

That's one argument I'll never understand

Normal? That depends on your definition of normalcy. If any practice that's engaged in by a monority of the human beings of the world is "abnormal", then I guess I'll give you that one.

Wrong? Again, depends on your definition. There's no law against being a homosexual. Yet.

But "not what God intended"?
This one I don't get. If you believe in God, then don't you think that if he created homosexuals, he must have "intended" to do so?

Does anyone remember who it was that fairly recently "came out" here? Because I'd surely like to get his input. I just can't remember what thread that was...

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2004/col20040302.asp

Apple

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html

Is anyone else sick of Rosie O'donnell?

Yo...right here!!


Ms. O'Donnel seems to have given herself an incredible air of self-importance lately. She seems to have taken on the Streisand frame of thought that whatever she says or does matters to anyone whatsoever.

Guess again, Rosie!!

Apple

Geoff,

I believe it was Chilltown, but don't remember which thread it was on.


TIS

Great memory, TIS, thanks!

I looked it up, and it was in the Homosexualism on T.V thread, from December.

Too bad he hasn't been posting here since Jan 30th; I hope he returns! Altho I'm fairly certain what he'd be saying anyway...

Not to bring this down to grade school humor but am I the only one that found the above statement amusing - especially regarding the topic?

Sorry to interrupt, I couldn't resist, I am just a big kid that never grew up.

You mean the "input" part? That's all I can think of. (Hmm, I mean deduce). Dirty mind on you, Bad Daddy!

Now go home and get your f'n sandbox!

Plaw

Yes it is AGAINST God's law so in my eyes it is against the law that people should live their lives by the Bible.

Diago is right it is a SIN. According to Leviticus 18:22 We are made in the image of God so therefore he did not create homosexuals. So IMHO We are not born gay it is a chosen way of life. I disagree with your opinion but you have the right to feel the way you do.

Well the main reason for sex is to reproduce. Two men and two women can have sex all they want, they’re never going to make a baby. So that’s how it’s not meant to be.

I thought you said you were a Catholic? Well if you are, you sure don’t believe the teachings of Christianity.

Mignon:

Once you selectively quote the Bible, as I've previously posted, I must assume that you, as a strict Bible follower a) are against people with crushed testicles, b) support capital punishment for people that curse or strike their parents, c) favor killing witches, d)condone slavery, e) don't eat goat fat and f) do not clip you hair at the temples.

How do you rationalize picking and chosing parts while ignoring other parts of the Bible?
====


No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord (Duet 23:2)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death (Ex 21:17)

Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death (Ex 21:18)

You shall not let a sorceress live. (Ex 22:17 )

When a man strikes his male or female slave in the eye and destroys the use of the eye, he shall let the slave go free in compensation for the eye (Ex 21:26)

You shall not partake of any fat or any blood. (Lev 3:17)

Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard. (Lev 19:27)

So I guess you believe that masturbation is "how it's not meant to be"?

May I infer that you do not engage in that practice?

There is a political belief that you can't legislate morality. When I heard this back in the early 70s if was used in the context of legalizing marijuana. It was interpreted as meaning whatever a person wants to do to their own body should not be controlled by laws. If you want to drink to excess, take drugs, cross-dress, etc. In principle I tend to agree with this philosophy, but nothing in our society is black and white. Gray is the predominant color.

The issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage can be considered a morality issue. But what do we have in our society to guide us in accepting it or legislating it. Besides our volumes of laws; federal, state, county, town, village, we have natural law. Closely linked we have religious laws. From these two our countries laws evolved. Homosexuality is contrary to the basic tenets of natural law; male and female have the biological uniqueness to procreate - natural law.

Marriage can be a legal and a religious union. Legally society can decide who (or what) can be married. If the majority of society believed a man could marry his dog, then laws would be enacted. Religious laws guide many people and also shape our secular laws.

This issue comes down to standards. What standards do you want to abide by or be guided by: Religious or Secular? The danger in being guided by secular beliefs is that the gray areas expand and we become a society where anything goes. In principle, you can't legislate morality, but who draws the line on decency, morality, respect and dignity?

Well, I know that I don't want my standards, or the standards of the society in which I live, to be determined by any one group's religious beliefs.

I heard a story on WINS this morning about 2 male penguins at the Bronx Zoo who were "co-habiting" in a penguin homosexual relationship. The curator or zoo director gave them a baby penguin egg, which they doted over until it hatched, and they are now raising their baby penguin.

I swear. You can't make this stuff up.

The individual draws his own line. What's moral and decent to me may not be moral and decent to you. And you can go your way, and I can go mine. That's one of the things that makes this country great.

The purpose of laws, as I see it, is to protect the members of society from those members who wish to do harm to others.

If I wish to take drugs and harm myself, that should be my business. But if I get stoned and drive my car and cause an accident that injures or kills someone else; well, we need to have a law against that type of behavior.

Hey, don`t try to be the most "mature" here either. I was just expressing my feelings through a hillarious and humorous way. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Overall, leaving your goddamn comments to yourself would be much more convenient.

Peace.

Great post, MaryCas. Especially this last paragraph!

Here's another article I found, for which I'm sure JGeoff will have a counter-response!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040303.shtml

Apple

My counter-response is contained right within that (fairly ridiculous) article you linked to:

In Bold are direct quotes from Apple's article, cited above:


Are homosexuals the only Americans permitted to change the definition of marriage, or do people with other sex orientations have that right as well?

Here's why I ask that question. Suppose a woman and a horse appeared before San Francisco County Clerk Nancy Alfaro applying for a marriage license, or it might be a man and a sheep. What argument might the County Clerk have for not issuing them a marriage license?

After all, the woman or man might say, "Our definition of marriage includes animals, plus my horse or my sheep will be eligible for my employee health care benefits and my inheritance at my death." It would appear that a denial of a marriage license would be sufficient grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. After all, animals have rights as well as humans.

Yeah, animals have rights, but they are not people, and don't have the same rights as people do. Denying an animal the right to marry a human, and then saying that it's grounds for a lawsuit because we've violated the animal's rights is just plain ridiculous. Animals don't have the right to vote, do they?

And, guess what? If someone decided thay wanted to marry a horse, or the previously mentioned duck, why should anyone care? If someone chooses to spend their life married to a non-human partner, it doesn't affect me or my life one iota, so I really don't care.

But there are other possibilities. Some people might feel that the definition of marriage should be expanded so as to include group marriage. What argument would the San Francisco County Clerk have against the issuance of a marriage license to three, four or 10 men or the like number of women who wanted to marry?

Again, as mentioned in a previous post, the Mormons believe in Polygamy. Christians don't. Why shouldn't consenting Mormons, or anyone else for that matter, be permitted to enter into a polygamus relationship? That's their religious belief. Sure, it's not Christian, but so what? They are consenting among themselves to live their life that way. Why should anyone care?

....the tobacco zealot's agenda whereby they started out demanding non-smoking sections on airplanes -- then no smoking altogether, then no smoking in airports, then no smoking in restaurants and so forth, until what we have today.

Had the anti-smoking zealots revealed their full agenda upfront, they might not have even been successful in getting no smoking sections on airplanes.

No smoking rules are fine with me.

The difference, and it's a big one, is that smokers, unlike people who marry ducks or horses, do affect my life and infringe upon my right to breathe fresh air when I'm on a public conveyance such as an airplane, or in a public place like a restaurant.

And I'm a smoker, too.

The argument that same-sex couples can't enjoy benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy is an issue that can be readily resolved. For example, if employers provide $200 worth of medical insurance a month, they can simply add $200 in cash to their employees' paychecks and let them decide how it's spent. Other rights same-sex couples claim they're denied can be achieved through contracts.

It's about more than legal rights and benefits and contracts.

It's my personal preference that people be able to conduct their lives in any manner they please. Tolerance doesn't require approval, only non-interference. Tolerance also doesn't require recognition of what one might call himself. A man and a man might call themselves married, but I'm not obliged to recognize it as such anymore than my calling myself the King of Siam should require that you recognize me as such.

Finally...something I agree with.

JGeoff and plawrence...great responses from both of you! I'm disappointed though, that amongst all the 'direct quotes' neither of you included the final sentence of the article:

"If it were possible for previous generations of Americans to know about this marriage controversy, they'd probably be embarrassed and shocked, and might ask, "What in the hell has happened to America?"

AppleOnYa

OK, What if a man wants to marry his own sister?
Or how about a grandfather who wants to marry their own granddaughter?

Now another question, what if a pair of connected Siamese twins want to marry each other or better yet if they each wanted to marry someone else?

Come to think of it do Siamese twins have one or two health insurance plans. If one twin kills a person does the other have to serve jail time too?
(Blame this on my old man- he has to put his two cents worth of humor in here)
Sure humor keeps thing mello.

And the other flip of the coin. What about Common law rights. When you live with someone for so long they become a Common Law Spouse? (This may not be in every state.)

You know after a while there is an exception for every rule or law ever made. It always seems that someone is being effected in a negative matter.

People must remember that laws and rules are made for a reason. To protect the majority They will not be perfect for everyone or every so called group.

Hell, they make new laws ever day just to correct one small little problem that may only happen once. They do it just to close loopholes and try and stop all gray areas which is impossible.

The way of the land is voting. So let them come forward, be recognized and someone start the process of changing things thru the system. The people, (ALL the people) will have a right to vote and that is the way things are done.

Now there's one sentence we can agree upon

What, exactly, would the majority be "protected" against if there was a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages?

Pops has a great sense of humor: I wish he'd come back

Animals shouldn't even be brought up in this arguement. I was earlier joking when I mentioned animals. For a legally binding contract to exist - which means marriages in this case both parties must be in capacity. They cannot be drunk, in unsound mental health and must have full awareness of what is going on. That must include animals.

I know it happens, but it cannot be seen as a legally binding contract.

Sorry- Laws are made to Govern the population and settle problems that one group of people seem to have with another. The majority getting \ wining their way after the voting process has taken effect.

I will pass that message to the old man. I think he may have forgotten his password after all this time. But don't tell him I said so. I am just guessing tho.

Times change.

Previous generations might have the same comment when they found out that slavery had been abolished and women now have the right to vote.

The embarrassment, to my way of thinking, is not that people of the same sex wish to marry.

The embarrassment is that the President of The Unite States has proposed that we have a constitutional ammendment to prohibit it.

Depends upon how you look at it. In my opinion (which of course is the correct one), he is not attempting to prohibit marriage, but to protect it.

And will somebody pleast tell me, WHO is fathersson's old man?????

Regards,
Apple

Plawrence,

Yes times may change but IMO not necessarily for the better.

I think the problem is lack of tolerance or respect for people that aren't exactly like us.

Why do we need laws to "settle problems" when there wouldn't be any problems to begin with if people simply minded their own business?

I´m agree with that

So, when was it better than today, exactly? When women couldn't vote? Or when African-Americans were enslaved? Or during The Great Depression? Or when we didn't have indoor plumbing? Before we had computers and microwaves and Starbucks? Was "Little House in the Prairie" the ideal era in American history?

Of course we evolve and grow, for the better. That doesn't mean there won't be any skuffles or debates along the way. If everyone agreed upon everything, there would be no growth...

These things gotta happen every ten years or so; it's been ten years since the last one...

If that could only happen-

After all, all Adam and Eve had to do was leave the dam apple alone!

Sure everyone wants tolerance and or justice when it is in their favor, but turn the tale around and it is a whole new story.

Put more then two minds/people together and you will have one more way of thinking then the perfect world needs.

Respect is a whole new issue. Seems like less and less give it, but all expect it. Again as long as it is coming my way.

Don't forget that even the people who are shouting for their rights often forget to do it in a respectful way. They want to jam their thoughts and ideas down others throats, Why? because they just don't listen and let us have our way! Happens on these boards and chartroom all the time.

Funny, this was in my mailbox tonight. I know it is a joke, but it does bring out some good points in a funny way.


"Next."

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" We can't reproduce and we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.

Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've

been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you

can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I

have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a

woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us

just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,

Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June

and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can

express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that

it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.

The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the

constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a

marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other person?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to

marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

those will be the next issues everyone will complaining about in the years to come.

MaryCas, the issue is more gray than even you lead on. Sure, some people are willing to part with the nation's core beliefs in order to follow a religious set of standards. But America was founded on the idea that EVERYONE is created equal. And the government was delegated some powers, and restrained from others. There is a system here. And the majority of issues facing the nation can be solved using our current system, including this one. The questioned you posed above is very misleading. If the government allows gays to continue to be married, are YOU losing any religious rights? Certainly not. But if the religious right deems homosexual marriages illegal, are THEY losing rights? Certainly. In only one circumstance are people losing rights, the former.

Plaw, we have found another thing to agree upon. I am a homophobe and a Christian, but even I can see that what MaryCas calls a "religious rule" is actually a Christian rule. Anyone who does not follow those same beliefs will be anlienated, and that is not the American way. In the current secular system, as repulsive as it may be morally, no one is alienated. We can pray to anyone we choose, if we choose to do so. And we can even screw other men. The key is, no one group is persecuted for their lifestyle unless it harms others. Ain't it grand?

Excellent post, HH!

You left out "anti-semite".

Speaking of which, let's be fair here. I wouldn't want the Jews to escape unscathed. It's really "Judeo-Christian" rule.

Well, i would surely be happy to respond to this topic, as per request of Mr. Webmaster-man. I think that its fairly well documented how i feel about this topic, considering that i am gay. But please everyone note, that i am openminded to any argument made by anyone-if the argument is good. in my opinion the backers of this amendment have done quite a few things that are not only unfair, but unconstitutional as well. There needs to be a clear distiction between church and state, and whether you like Bush or not, he is defying the constitution by allowing his personal religious beliefs to influence his decisions.
Next, the freedoms of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can be debated openly, i agree, but one must remember that it should not come at the expense of someone else's basic rights. Which brings me to the next point-the Constitution was created to protect rights, not take them away.
Finally, i think the most bitter of pills for me is that George Bush clearly stated in his 2000 campaign that in regards to this subject he believes the states should decide the end result. Well with all the recent 'defiances' by municipalities, I guess he only believes in states' rights so long as they agree with him.
Thank you.

Good news for gay couples in England. My town is going to host either the first or one of the first gay marriages in England. Check the link out. http://www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk/d...;sourceNode=555 68&contentPK=9141503

Turi -

That article is confusing because it says "to wed" and "lesbian wedding" but then it says they "cannot have a traditional church wedding. Instead they must have a commitment ceremony, which is similar to a wedding but does not grant them the same legal advantages of the traditional service."

A commitment ceremony (I THINK) is legal here. The whole point of this whole controversy is actually being "married" with the same legal benefits as a male-female union.

P.S. Good to see you here, Chilltown!

Maybe we have different policies on weddings. As far as I know in the UK you can be legally married (actually married and none of that commitment ceremony malarky) anywhere nowadays, on a bus, down the beach or skydiving if you so choose. It's a religious matter that the church is denying it.

That's true here, too. And practically anyone can marry you, too. (You can become a "minister" via mail order for like $5 and supposedly legally marry people ).

However, it's the term "marriage" that's the problem - whether the marriage is recognized as a legal "marriage" by the government.

That's what the fight is about.

So, J.G. are you saying that "gay marriage" is about "love" or money. Cuz you can love a guy or a girl but imho you can only love a girl and fuck a girl with it really meaning something(children, family, long lasting relationship, having a healthy sex drive etc.etc.) Maybe I'm just an oldfashioned conservative tightass but I can't understand how homosexuals would want both from the same gender. Frankly the very idea...well I carry on. Lesbians? Well if they're of the lipstick variety...I just like to watch.

What would DON VITO think of all this gay marriage nonsense?

Well he did call Fountain a "finocchio" [f*g].

Plawrence.....

As a lesbian non-religious female to me
personally Civil-Unions are just fine, although, many religious gay/lesbian people feel the need to have their partnership in marriage. I view marraige as a religious symbol adopted by the government with laws to validate a relationship.
Most if not all Civil Union rights are the same as marriage. Nevertheless, it seems many religious people prefer to call it something else.
It is what it is marriage by a different name.
It's weird so many other Euro countires had already settled this gay/lesbian marriage debate decades ago. I feel if it wasn't for religion many view points counter to gay/lesbian marriage would not exist. By the way, you don't assume EVERYONE in the B.C & A.D centuries were all str8?

I did leave out anti-semite, because it has no relevence here. But if you want me to carry around that "scarlet letter" whenever I post any message about any subject, I will.

Your statement about the rule being a Judeo-Christian one is a bit off I feel. The rule that is extending it's power in this land is a strictly Protestant Christian one. Bush and his cronies certainly follow the Jewish elite with regards to foreign policy, but as far as the homeland is concerned, they are using their own moral code.

Gays are not allowed to marry.

Howard Stern is about to be made a First Amendment martyr.

Muslims and people who look like they may share that belief system are no longer free to go through an airport or on an airplane without being searched, their possessions being siezed, and generally being violated.

These very basic rights are being taken away by a Christian Right.

So in all fairness, even I feel that the Jews ARE unscathed by this crisis. There has never been a Jew president, and there have only been 2 Catholics.

HH,

I believe JFK was the first Catholic President, who is the other?????


TIS

They should and better put a stop to this gay marriage bullshit like they should have stop hitler at munich.!

[/b]
Just a little humor there. Lighten up.

Quote

Howard Stern is about to be made a First Amendment martyr.

Don't get me started on that one.
That's a topic for a whole 'nother thread.

According the the FCC's own doctrine, "The airwaves belong to the people".

How DARE the government decide what is fit for me to listen to because they deem it offensive?
Anyone who doesn't like Howard Stern is perfectly free to not listen.

Didn't Bush say something in a speech the other day about "Doing God's work"?

Let's mix religion and politics. Now there's a scary thought.

Exactly what I'm worried about.

PLaw,

I have seen HS show before, but personally can't stand him, so as you say, I don't watch him. However, what exactly did he do (out of the ordinary for him) that got him fired???


TIS

Actually, I'm no fan of his either. I consider him to be a totally self-absorbed egocentric, whose humor is quite juvenile. I mean, listening to him belch in the middle of a monologue is funny once or twice, but he's been doing the same stuff for 20 years.

I never watch his TV show. He is on the radio in NY, mornings from about 6-10, I guess, but I prefer Imus.

Since I don't listen, I can't tell you exactly what he said that's gotten him into trouble.

TIS, I was under the impression that LBJ was also a Catholic. I could be wrong. That makes it worse!

Plaw, the Howard Stern thing is ridiculous. Someone just asked what he did to get fired. The answer is this: the same things he had been doing for 20 years. The same things that made him a star. In fact, the only thing that changed is that we actually got a religious zealot in the Oval Office who really claims he is doing "God's work".

All of this outrage, and I am not even a Stern fan. I don't care much for his fart jokes and pixelated breasts, but when in the hell did the government get the right to censor someone who was not breaking an FCC regulations!?

"Congress is about to vote on amending the U.S. Constitution to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples.

"Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's rights. Yet our Senators will vote on this amendment on Wednesday.

"It's urgent that we speak up now. This hateful divisiveness has no place in America. Please join me in saying so, at:

http://www.moveon.org/unitednotdivided/

"Equality in marriage is the civil rights issue of our generation. We can't let anyone, or any group, be singled out for discrimination based on who they are or who they love."

I do support gay relationships, but I still believe that if 2 gays wed, they will go to hell. Weddings are made for a man and woman to unite. Not a man and a man. Not a woman and a woman. I don't believe in gays wedding together, but it is there choice. I certainly don't think Bush needs to make an Amendment against it either. -Pat

Won't the backdoor way to achieve "gay marriage" be to simply first call it "civil union", then slowly change it look like "marriage"? In the end, would a constitutional amendment be nothing more than a legal semantical rule for how to use the English language?

Why am I wasting my keystrokes on this pointless election year pandering? Does anyone truly believe that 38 states would ratify this?

I am a conservative, but this is one issue I might be liberal on. The fact is I just don't care. I'm not for gay marriage, but I wouldn't say I'm against either. Again, I just don't care.