Opposed to the gay marriage amendment?

Serial Midget · Feb 24, 2004

An ammendment to the Constitution that "defines" marriage is not going to happen. It's an interesting issue / political excercise but when it comes altering the foundation of our society I don't think we, as Americans, will actually do it.

BurlyShirley · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Serial Midget
An ammendment to the Constitution that "defines" marriage is not going to happen. It's an interesting issue / political excercise but when it comes altering the foundation of our society I don't think we, as Americans, will actually do it.

Well I hope we do.

Ridemonkey · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well I hope we do.

The government needs to quit sticking its nose into every facet of our lives. If the govment actually spends money to enforce this moral crusade, I'm gonna quit paying taxes.

zod · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
The government needs to quit sticking its nose into every facet of our lives. If the govment actually spends money to enforce this moral crusade, I'm gonna quit paying taxes.

Amen, preach it brother!!

DRB · Feb 24, 2004

Constitutional Amendment?

Unbelievable? Absolutely unbelievable.

Someone want to explain to me how that is going to pay for one program under the federal budget, catch one terrorist, build one road, or anything else the FEDERAL government is responsible for.

Someone used the word very appropriately... DEFLECTION ISSUE. I'm not doing my job elsewhere so I'm going to completely muddy the waters so it is less obvious.

BurlyShirley · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
The government needs to quit sticking its nose into every facet of our lives. If the govment actually spends money to enforce this moral crusade, I'm gonna quit paying taxes.

And i dont want to pay taxes to fund the numerous pro-gay equality programs that are going to sprout up if the precedent of allowing gay marriages is set. I dont want to pay taxes, but I will, of course.

DamienC · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by BurlySurly
And i dont want to pay taxes to fund the numerous pro-gay equality programs that are going to sprout up if the precedent of allowing gay marriages is set. I dont want to pay taxes, but I will, of course.

Wait, explain to me how "equal rights" translates to "pro-gay"? :confused:

N8 v2.0 · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by DRB
Constitutional Amendment?

Unbelievable? Absolutely unbelievable.

Someone want to explain to me how that is going to pay for one program under the federal budget, catch one terrorist, build one road, or anything else the FEDERAL government is responsible for.

Someone used the word very appropriately... DEFLECTION ISSUE. I'm not doing my job elsewhere so I'm going to completely muddy the waters so it is less obvious.

The Federal gov needs to stay the heck outta this issue, however, Pres Bush NEEDS the support of his base which has been feeling pretty abandoned lately. This will appease the GUBA's.

I beleive there are plenty of laws on the books that already address this issue. If the gay crowd wants to make it legal then they need to vote it in and not rely on activist judges/politicians to do it for them. Of course the majority of the American population is opposes it so it will be a tough sell.

I Are Baboon · Feb 24, 2004

...and my opinion of GWB continues to slide and slide and slide........

$tinkle · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Capt. Jack Sparrow
According to Yahoo! news this morning, Bush is going to back the gay marriage amendment:

Bush to Back Gay Marriage Amendment

If you're opposed to the gay marriage amendment and would like to help same-sex couples get equal rights to marriage, check out this organization:

Human Rights Campaign

Thanks for your time.

you omitted "ban" from your first link - it was confusing until i clicked.

i find the 2nd link confusing, but not by your doing. How can an organization base their name on the very concept of ending themselves? Gay humans can't (naturally) reproduce - so i guess this one will die out in exactly one generation (?). Also confusing is using the lump term "human", when the HRC admitted in an amicus curiae for Lawrence & Garner v State of Texas that gay men make up 2.8 %, and lesbians 1.4 % of the US population, nearly on 2 orders less than the total population.

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
The government needs to quit sticking its nose into every facet of our lives. If the govment actually spends money to enforce this moral crusade, I'm gonna quit paying taxes.

do you feel the same that gov't funds are used to spuriously "marry" homosexuals? That view would be consistent.

N8 v2.0 · Feb 24, 2004

In a related story:

John F. Kerry said although he would vote for such an admendment, he would oppose it. Kerry also indicated he might eventually back gay marriages if a public consensus developed for them.

BurlyShirley · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by DamienC
Wait, explain to me how "equal rights" translates to "pro-gay"?

I dont want to type out a big laundry list of things that will bother me, but my main problem is that we'll have to screw with 95% of the population to appease 5%. Seems everyone likes to root for the underdog but me. Oh well. I dont expect for you all to agree. I dont care. But i do like to speak my peice when threads like this come about. IMO, this is the precedent that will lead to things like "gay" affirmative action and other ideas i despise.

Serial Midget · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by N8
Of course the majority of the American population is opposes it so it will be a tough sell.

In the 1950's the majority of American adults smoked cigarettes, approved of the nuclear arms race and supported/enacted segregationist laws that banned interracial marriage. They also drove American built cars and held jobs that actually supported a stay at home and their 2.3 children. Times change, yes they do.

N8 v2.0 · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Serial Midget
In the 1950's the majority of American adults smoked cigarettes, approved of the nuclear arms race and supported/enacted segregationist laws that banned interracial marriage. They also drove American built cars and held jobs that actually supported a stay at home and their 2.3 children. Times change, yes they do.

They do.... and I support gay marriage but there also needs to be room in the law to allow the state to recognize hetro co-habitating folk too.

The majority is opposed BUT the margin is slim and probably shrinking.....

While the issue of gay marriages dominates the news in San Francisco and Boston, a majority of Americans remain opposed to the idea. Fifty-two percent of Red State voters and 50% of Blue State voters support such a constitutional amendment while 43% of Red State voters and 44% of Blue State voters disagree.

$tinkle · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Serial Midget
In the 1950's the majority of American adults smoked cigarettes, approved of the nuclear arms race and supported/enacted segregationist laws that banned interracial marriage. They also drove American built cars and held jobs that actually supported a stay at home and their 2.3 children. Times change, yes they do.

in the 1950's the majority of people weren't gay.
your feable attempt to link segregationist laws (passed by legislation - not population - and thusly not including the majority) to laws proposed & enacted to protect the sanctity of marriage is intellectually dishonest.

Serial Midget · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
in the 1950's the majority of people weren't gay.
your feable attempt to link segregationist laws (passed by legislation - not population - and thusly not including the majority) to laws proposed & enacted to protect the sanctity of marriage is intellectually dishonest.

I'm not linking anything. Just pointing out how the passing of time tends to change the perception of the masses. Right now the majority of Americans are overweight - doesn't mean it's OK.

BTW legislators are elected by the people...

DRB · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
in the 1950's the majority of people weren't gay.
your feable attempt to link segregationist laws (passed by legislation - not population - and thusly not including the majority) to laws proposed & enacted to protect the sanctity of marriage is intellectually dishonest.

The majority of folks in the 1950's weren't black.

Those inter-racial marriage laws were also passed partially under the banner of protecting the "sanctity" of marriage.

Serial Midget · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by DRB
The majority of folks in the 1950's weren't black.

Those inter-racial marriage laws were also passed partially under the banner of protecting the "sanctity" of marriage.

...and "preserving" the "American Family"; code words have been around for a mighty long time.

$tinkle · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I'm not linking anything. Just pointing out how the passing of time tends to change the perception of the masses. Right now the majority of Americans are overweight - doesn't mean it's OK.

BTW legislators are elected by the people...

yes, a case can be made for proxy decisions, and therefore the majority is represented. I'm sure if we were around then, we wouldn't give a rip about laws, congress, blah, blah, blah...as we do today.

unless we were black, in which case, it wouldn't have mattered. But, unlike then, the gay population has a vote, and furthermore an activist community given disproportionate voice (IMO & shared by that homophobe burlysurly)

Originally posted by DRB
The majority of folks in the 1950's weren't black.

Those inter-racial marriage laws were also passed partially under the banner of protecting the "sanctity" of marriage.

nor are they today, i realize that. However, i think you're due a correction on the motivation for passing interracial marriages. We thought - and breathtakingly incorrectly so - that mixed marriage would result in mutations. Of course, this implies that the couple would have sex & therefore attempt to procreate.

Which offers 2 thoughts hurting the case for gay marriage:
1 -> passing gay marriage laws sanctions sodomy
2 -> no one is submitting that homosexual activities result in mutation

N8 v2.0 · Feb 24, 2004

I hate to see this become an election year issue.

Gay marriage applies to such a teeny-tiny number of people in the US.

Its a distraction to all the more importaint issues at hand.

Serial Midget · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
1 -> passing gay marriage laws sanctions sodomy

Maybe you should define what sodomy means to you.

$tinkle · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Maybe you should define what sodomy means to you.

in Lawrence v Texas, where the state sodomy law(s) was(were) overturned, anal sex was the issue. An interesting note, there was no law on the books which covered homosexual rape. I believe this is still the case, but i have to refine my search at findlaw.com to confirm. I'd rather not lean on my opinion, but rather base it upon legal filings/briefs. I'm sure that when the catholic bishop/priest story broke last year, they were talking about performing oral sex on various altar boys.

BurlyShirley · Feb 24, 2004

Sunuvabitch,

I mean, bipartisan politics are just tearing this country apart. As many Dems said earlier...they're against same sex marriages, but now that its election time and Bush is anti gay marriages...well of course the Dems have to be for them. So this whole thing that only affect 2-5% of the population picks up the backing of one of the two political entities not because its important, but because some people are so short-sighted that all they want is Bush out of the White House, not what's best for the country...though the two may mean the same thing.....this is not the issue on which to express that. FACK!

DRB · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by N8
I hate to see this become an election year issue.

Gay marriage applies to such a teeny-tiny number of people in the US.

Its a distraction to all the more importaint issues at hand.

You deserve a :thumb:

for this.

DRB · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Sunuvabitch,

I mean, bipartisan politics are just tearing this country apart. As many Dems said earlier...they're against same sex marriages, but now that its election time and Bush is anti gay marriages...well of course the Dems have to be for them. So this whole thing that only affect 2-5% of the population picks up the backing of one of the two political entities not because its important, but because some people are so short-sighted that all they want is Bush out of the White House, not what's best for the country...though the two may mean the same thing.....this is not the issue on which to express that. FACK!

Its a subset of even what goes on here. Look at the Education thread by Jr. 7 or 8 posts. The two gay marriage threads 50+ posts........ It boggles the mind.

zod · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by DRB
You deserve a for this.

Indeed he does......but it is still a distraction that will heavily sway my vote. (I hate distractions) :monkey:

DRB · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by zod
Indeed he does......but it is still a distraction that will heavily sway my vote. (I hate distractions)

Really it would sway your vote?

If for some reason Bush came out against a constitutional amendment and Kerry was for it, you would switch your vote?

(guessing from your posts you are Dubya kinda guy).

N8 v2.0 · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by DRB
Its a subset of even what goes on here. Look at the Education thread by Jr. 7 or 8 posts. The two gay marriage threads 50+ posts........ It boggles the mind.

Its because the lib's can't muster any meaningful issues this election year. Heck, even their star canidate supported the President on just about all the key issues at one time or another.

Gay marriage is a fore-gone conclusion in my opinon. Its gonna happen sooner or later and then queer folk can be held to all the same myriad of laws that us hetro's are. Serves 'em right I say!

Next issue ....

Serial Midget · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by N8
Gay marriage is a fore-gone conclusion in my opinon. Its gonna happen sooner or later and then queer folk can be held to all the same myriad of laws that us hetro's are. Serves 'em right I say!

BINGO! Sodomy for everyone! :thumb:

$tinkle · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Serial Midget
BINGO! Sodomy for everyone!

....can't...move.....from....desk
legs....turning....into...pillars....of...salt....

RhinofromWA · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Serial Midget
BINGO! Sodomy for everyone!

Hey watch the use of the :thumb:

on quotes like that!

lol

Ridemonkey · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by BurlySurly
And i dont want to pay taxes to fund the numerous pro-gay equality programs that are going to sprout up if the precedent of allowing gay marriages is set. I dont want to pay taxes, but I will, of course.

Government programs are a lot different than Constitutional Ammendments. Bush recently said he'd like to spend a billion dollars to defend the institution of marriage. Thats just pure insanity.

Jr_Bullit · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Government programs are a lot different than Constitutional Ammendments. Bush recently said he'd like to spend a billion dollars to defend the institution of marriage. Thats just pure insanity.

lol - I dunno that there's any amount of money out there that'll persuade folks to get rid of the idea of divorce again, and even if there were, there be an awful lot of cheatin goin on and unhappy people (not that there's not right now...but it could get a lot worse).

$tinkle · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Government programs are a lot different than Constitutional Ammendments. Bush recently said he'd like to spend a billion dollars to defend the institution of marriage. Thats just pure insanity.

to not defend when under attack is pure insanity, and the majority of americans (do i really have to post charts of polls?) view traditional marriage as under attack.

because my view of marriage is perhaps more revered than yours, i do not put a dollar figure on defending it.

ummbikes · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
to not defend when under attack is pure insanity, and the majority of americans (do i really have to post charts of polls?) view traditional marriage as under attack.

because my view of marriage is perhaps more revered than yours, i do not put a dollar figure on defending it.

By all means Stinkle kick down, in my town we have homeless, hungry CHILDREN.

We Christians need to stay out of politics and spend more time in the streets taking care of the least of us. You really think the God of the universe needs us wasting our time on this crap?

He asks to be choosen, why does man think he can make rules that will make people choose one lifestyle over the other?

This is lame, people are dying all over and kids are starving and people want to spend huge resourses on the preservation of an instituion that has ALREADY DIED!

Morons, our spiritual and political leaders are complete freaking morons.

Serial Midget · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by ummbikes
Die BUSH! DIE!!!

I knew you were a genius.

Velocity Girl · Feb 24, 2004

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont want to type out a big laundry list of things that will bother me, but my main problem is that we'll have to screw with 95% of the population to appease 5%. Seems everyone likes to root for the underdog but me. Oh well. I dont expect for you all to agree. I dont care. But i do like to speak my peice when threads like this come about. IMO, this is the precedent that will lead to things like "gay" affirmative action and other ideas i despise.

So would you make the same argument about abortion then?? Having to "screw" with a bigger percentage of the population to deal with a problem that doesn't effect as "the masses"?

The issue is important to those who it effects and to those who believe in it as the right thing to do.

Opposed to the gay marriage amendment?

Monkey

Al Bundy

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

This is not an active account

Turbo Monkey

unemployed bum

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Turbo Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

The Full Dopey

Expert on blowing

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Al Bundy

Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Expert on blowing

Al Bundy

unemployed bum

Al Bundy

Expert on blowing

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Al Bundy

Expert on blowing

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

unemployed bum

unemployed bum

Turbo Monkey

unemployed bum

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Al Bundy

Expert on blowing

Brevity R Us

This is not an active account

Monkey

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

Expert on blowing

Don't mess with the Santas

Al Bundy

whack-a-mole