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.