[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by fluff
It's an issue because bigots like you make it so. Say yes, allow gay couples to have the same legal rights as straight couples and move on to the more important issues.

I would happily trade gay marriage for hate crimes and anti-discriminatory legislation. Why should gay folk have more protection under the law than straight folk? As it currently exists in many areas, gays have a legal basis for recourse if they are passed over for a promotion or beat up that are in excess of those enjoyed by heteros. Is that fair?

Originally posted by fluff
How the hell does it hurt anyone if two gay people who are already a couple are allowed additional legal rights under the name of marriage.

Personally, I could care less. The main arguments I hear are the "slippery slope" argument and that the courts are already overburdoned with cases involving traditional marriages, divorces, custody battles, etc. so why make the problem worse.

Originally posted by fluff
It's only a word for heaven's sake and if God hates the idea so much I'm sure he'll find his own way of dealing with it.

It's not the word that gay advocates are after so much as the resulting legal protections. BTW, ever hear of what happened in Sodom and Gemorrah? No way I'd ever risk it by moving to San Francisco.

Originally posted by fluff
The American family? How is that affected, that'll just as separated and dysfuntional as ever.

Legalizing gay marriage confers official recognition and acceptance of what most Americans do not want to recognize or accept. It's hard to tell your kids that they shouldn't do something when the state says "go right ahead; it's OK".

Originally posted by fluff
Affirmative action? Take away the reason. Are you people really that stupid?

We are a bit slow compared to our enlightened brethren across the pond.

Originally posted by fluff
Your country is getting fvcked up beyond belief

We shall endeavor to pick up the pace of our decline so that we can soon join our colonial European friends at the bar and share our own stories of past glory that has faded into gray...or is that grey?

 

[zod]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
past glory that has faded into gray...or is that grey?

touché

 

[I Are Baboon]

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.

This is great....GWB wants to "protect the sanctity of marriage", yet the divorce rate in this country is 50%. How hypocritical. The sanctity of marriage started corroding a long time ago. People change spouses nowadays like they change underwear. Want to protect the idea of marriage? Make it a lot harder to get a divorce.

 

[zod]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Want to protect the idea of marriage? Make it a lot harder to get a divorce.

I agree with you 100%
People wouldn't jump into marriage as quickly if they knew getting out of it was gonna by holy hell. You wouldn't see so many people getting married after 6 months of dating....

 

[N8 v2.0]

I think this is a State's Rights issue. Each state should decide if they will allow gay marriage/multipule spouses/etc on their own.

As far as making divorce difficult, some states (Louisiana, Arkansas and Az), have what are called Covenant Marriages. They can be quite difficult to get out of.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by zod
All this being said I see no reason for us to all start slandering each other in this forum, let's keep the conversation open and remember that it is going to be opinionated.......after all that's what us American's are all about. (fluff still bows to a queen though )

I only slander N8 by calling him a pinhead. If I slandered you I apologize as I would never go after fellow North Carolinian (unless you are a UNC fan, then I wish horrid things upon you. )

 

[Capt. Jack Sparrow]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
This is great....GWB wants to "protect the sanctity of marriage", yet the divorce rate in this country is 50%. How hypocritical. The sanctity of marriage started corroding a long time ago. People change spouses nowadays like they change underwear. Want to protect the idea of marriage? Make it a lot harder to get a divorce.

Right on.

 

[zod]

Originally posted by DRB
I would never go after fellow North Carolinian (unless you are a UNC fan, then I wish horrid things upon you. )

Are you kidding, seeing Virginia beat UNC last night was like a wet dream!!! Duke all the way!!

Sorry for the hijack folks but us NC'ers are a little nutty about ACC B-ball

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by zod
Are you kidding, seeing Virginia beat UNC last night was like a wet dream!!! Duke all the way!!

Sorry for the hijack folks but us NC'ers are a little nutty about ACC B-ball

That's ok. UConn is going to kick all their asses anyway.

 

[zod]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
That's ok. UConn is going to kick all their asses anyway.

Uhh.......

01/17 Connecticut 83 - UNC 86

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by zod
Are you kidding, seeing Virginia beat UNC last night was like a wet dream!!! Duke all the way!!

Sorry for the hijack folks but us NC'ers are a little nutty about ACC B-ball

Oh then we are definately on the same page about that.

UCONN? Do they play men's basketball there?

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by zod
Uhh.......

01/17 Connecticut 83 - UNC 86

D'oh! I knew you'd bring that up.

Originally posted by DRB
Oh then we are definately on the same page about that.

UCONN? Do they play men's basketball there?

1999 National Champs, yo. Also, Emaka Okafor will be Player of the Year and will go #1 in the NBA draft.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
BTW, ever hear of what happened in Sodom and Gemorrah? No way I'd ever risk it by moving to San Francisco.

Why worry? All the righteous people were saved.

As for the end of you post, you think I care? I would happily trade our status as one of the most powerful military nations on earth for a reduced defence budget and better healthcare and realistic pensions. That would do a lot more good for the citizens of this country.

And gay couples together is already sandtioned as it is legal, why not allow them the same rights? Call it gayrriage if it makes you feel better.

Save the courts time by making any divorce settlement 50% each if the marriage has lasted 5 years or more and back to what you brought to the union for less than 5 years (and make pre-nuptial statement of account mandatory and legally binding).

Simple enough, move on to the problems that matter.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
And gay couples together is already sandtioned as it is legal, why not allow them the same rights? Call it gayrriage if it makes you feel better.

Is that anything like FREEDOM Fries?

Save the courts time by making any divorce settlement 50% each if the marriage has lasted 5 years or more and back to what you brought to the union for less than 5 years (and make pre-nuptial statement of account mandatory and legally binding).

Simple enough, move on to the problems that matter.

some states are 50/50 divorce states yet they still are bogged down by divorce cases. That doesn't matter.

Divorce isn't the problem with marriage....it is societies acceptance of divorces that has cause the problem we have today. 50 years ago if you would be hard pressed to think about divorce. Now it is sickly common. People have their reasons but it is still to prevelant in society. The "Sanctity of Marriage" is being destroyed by the ease and acceptance of divorce in our society. Not saying that divorce is a walk in the park but it is more prevelant than it should be, and affects more than the two people involved.

BRING BACK SHAME TO THE SOCIETY! We functioned better with it

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
I would happily trade gay marriage for hate crimes and anti-discriminatory legislation. Why should gay folk have more protection under the law than straight folk? As it currently exists in many areas, gays have a legal basis for recourse if they are passed over for a promotion or beat up that are in excess of those enjoyed by heteros. Is that fair?

since when has it ever been about fair? Biology has already favored one group over the other.

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Personally, I could care less. The main arguments I hear are the "slippery slope" argument and that the courts are already overburdoned with cases involving traditional marriages, divorces, custody battles, etc. so why make the problem worse.

i wish everyone would quit calling this argument slipperly slope - it isn't. Marriage as we know it today, is nothing like it was 40 yrs ago, as i've pointed out at the other gay marriage thread

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Legalizing gay marriage confers official recognition and acceptance of what most Americans do not want to recognize or accept. It's hard to tell your kids that they shouldn't do something when the state says "go right ahead; it's OK".

along w/ sodomy being sanctioned by the gov't (why does no one recognize this?)

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
It's an issue because bigots like you make it so. Say yes, allow gay couples to have the same legal rights as straight couples and move on to the more important issues.

How the hell does it hurt anyone if two gay people who are already a couple are allowed additional legal rights under the name of marriage.

ok, try this on for size:
boy scouts (or whatever you have over there).

Consider the case of the Boy Scouts in Connecticut, who were denied participation in a state charitable program because of scouting membership requirements to be "morally straight" and not favoring homosexual conduct. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state's decision to bar the Scouts, prompting Robert Muise, associate counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, to opine, "It is unconstitutional to force an organization to forego its basic values, beliefs and practices as a condition for the receipt of a government benefit. This decision, which permits the government to punish an organization based on its opposition to homosexuality, not only harms the Boy Scouts, but it also threatens the constitutional rights of other individuals and organizations who object to homosexuality on the basis of their religious beliefs."

i can be a scoutmaster because i'm male, but if i disclose i'm a gay male, there's a bit of an issue, the same way i can't be a girl-scout leader. Something about temptation & parents' problems with that.

I wouldn't call these parents bigots, nor would i call them paranoid. I would call them reasonable & responsible. What are we to say if we pass gay-marriage? Ok, now you two keep that piece of notarized paper in your vault & don't try to live life as us straights do. But, we do already do that. And in this example of the BSA, is this wrong, or is this appropriate?

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by $tinkle
along w/ sodomy being sanctioned by the gov't (why does no one recognize this?)

I think this is your personal agenda; you're seeing what you want to see. Gigarettes and alcohol are legal but the gov'ment certainly doesn't condone their use.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by $tinkle
is this wrong, or is this appropriate?

Huh? The gays have always had Glee Club and Yell Squad pretty wrapped up... do they even have time for Scouting?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I think this is your personal agenda; you're seeing what you want to see. Gigarettes and alcohol are legal but the gov'ment certainly doesn't condone their use.

just because i'm equipped to smoke & drink doesn't imply that i will. We don't see advocates for the folks who have a lifestyle of smoking & drinking be recognized & seek redress for discrimination, no? But, i see your point on the (seeming) hypocrisy of our gubment's silence on issues which seem to be - how do you say - "risky", or "unhealthy".

speaking of hypocrisy, isn't it funny that the far left seeks to restore the environment, using "natural order" as the main argument? What "natural order" is preserved by homosexuality? It seems that the right could use natural order as a strong argument, but they would be called "bigots" by people like fluffer.

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Huh? The gays have always had Glee Club and Yell Squad pretty wrapped up... do they even have time for Scouting?

is not one of the desired roles in a marriage to raise a family? And would not a logical step be to be active in raising a child(ren)? Would you submit that we allow gays to marry, adopt children (which i don't have a problem with given the sad state of our foster system), and them limit how much parenting they can perform because of their orientation? Sounds like discrimination to me. And it is.

BUT, is this valid discrimination, akin to why i can't be a "den mother" or however girl scout troop leaders are designated?

 

[Damn True]

I'm against Bush's amendment.
I think he is dead wrong on this one.

 

[towelie]

Originally posted by N8
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.

He never said that. He said that he is personally against gay marriage, but he didn't think it justified ammending the constitution. He thought it should be left up to the states.

It seems that democrats are the new conservatives. It used to be the republicans that wanted the government to interfere in people's rights and lives as little as possible. It was the republicans who were supposodely "fiscally responsible".

Now, republicans want to interfere in persnal lives as much as possible, as long as it is one of their pet projects. Hypocrites. Also, every republican president for the last 25 years has increased that national debt by at least $1T per term. So much for fiscally responsible.

Also, I think I heard that Bush said that gay marriage goes against God. Does God need an agent? Is the US God? NO. Let people do what they want as long as they aren't hurting somebody else, then let God sort them out. People during the Spanish inquisition and European colonialism thought they were doing God's work too. Look how that turned out. The government- especially the FEDRAL government, has no business limiting this right.

Also, this issue pails in comparisson to the real issues like the deficit, the economy, and national security. It is a smokescreen that is made into a big issue to draw "moral-based" voters away from the real issues that actually affect THEM.

 

[towelie]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
There was a time when I thought Kerry would be OK, but now, after all the shuffling and wordgames, Im left only with Bush, who i do not "like" but can expect at least not to do something so rash as to allow gay marriages.

I saw Kerry on TV this morning. Bush is trying to paint him as a shuffler, and people (e.g. you) are buying it. However, this morning, it was clear that he supported many of Bush's initiatives, but is disgusted with the way they are being implimented. Good ideas, terrible execution. He went on to list all the main issues in questiong, say why he supported them, and what is wrong with them now.

Also, burly, gays aren't making the noise here. They are just getting married in one city, like many have always wanted to. BUSH is the one going on TV condemning it and proposing to modify the CONSTITUTION! THAT, is noise.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by towelie
Also, burly, gays aren't making the noise here. They are just getting married in one city, like many have always wanted to. BUSH is the one going on TV condemning it and proposing to modify the CONSTITUTION! THAT, is noise.

Ummmm OK.

Yeah, no noise from the homosexual camp.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by towelie
I saw Kerry on TV this morning. Bush is trying to paint him as a shuffler, and people (e.g. you) are buying it. However, this morning, it was clear that he supported many of Bush's initiatives, but is disgusted with the way they are being implimented. Good ideas, terrible execution. He went on to list all the main issues in questiong, say why he supported them, and what is wrong with them now.

Also, burly, gays aren't making the noise here. They are just getting married in one city, like many have always wanted to. BUSH is the one going on TV condemning it and proposing to modify the CONSTITUTION! THAT, is noise.

Dude,
I dont know what hole you've been hiding in over the past year or so, but Bush's backing of this proposed ammendment is only in response to the NOISE caused by this nominal portion of the population. SanFran is just the latest example. First it was Hawaii, then it was Vermont or New Hampshire or something, then the whole sodomy deal earlier this year...all these events have contributed to where we are now. Bush isnt making noise, IMO, he's trying to stifle it...which you may or may not agree with...but you honestly cant say he's the one who started it.

As far as Kerry goes, of course he's going to have formulated an answer by now for his issues. IMO, the things Bush has done, by and large, especially with the War on Terror, Iraq stuff...which I beleive to be the biggest issue at the moment, are spot-on, and I'd like to have SOME continuety. I dont want some guy who agrees with something, than later decides it sucks and wants to abandon it, and not see it through. But that's just me, I could care less if you agree or not.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by towelie
He never said that. He said that he is personally against gay marriage, but he didn't think it justified ammending the constitution. He thought it should be left up to the states.

I think that was sarcasm, Fella, pointed at Kerry's tendancy to shuffle everything he says.



Good try though

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by $tinkle
But, i see your point on the (seeming) hypocrisy of our gubment's silence on issues which seem to be - how do you say - "risky", or "unhealthy".

Nooooo... my point is that it is NOT the govornments place approve / dissaprove of lifestyle choices the do not harm society as a whole. So gays bother you - BFD. Christian Fundamentalists bother me - the difference is that I recogize their right to exist and prosper within our society. Our country and our society are NOT the sole property of Christain Fundamentalists. Our country was founded by those whom sought religious freedom as a means of escape from the religous tyranny of state sponsored religion. To ensure their freedom to practice their chosen religion, our founders crafted framework to clearly separate matters of church and state. As a result of this "Freedom of Religion" we also have FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

I would personally give my life to defend the continued separation of Church and State.

For me it is all a matter of fairness, the fruits of our democracy must be evenly distributed among our citizens. Every citizen is entitled to full protection under the laws that were crafted within the framework provided by the Constitution that our country was founded on.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I would personally give my life to defend the continued separation of Church and State.

FROM MY COLD DEAD SEQUINED GLOVED HAND!

 

[MMike]

Originally posted by ummbikes
FROM MY COLD DEAD SEQUINED GLOVED HAND!.....

Would that hand be spanking a bare ass wearing red leather chaps?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by MMike
Would that hand be spanking a bare ass wearing red leather chaps?

In his case, yes, yes it would.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by MMike
Would that hand be spanking a bare ass wearing red leather chaps?

BLACK Chaps...

 

[MMike]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
BLACK Chaps...

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by MMike

UGGGGG.... BAAADDDDD flashback.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle

speaking of hypocrisy, isn't it funny that the far left seeks to restore the environment, using "natural order" as the main argument? What "natural order" is preserved by homosexuality? It seems that the right could use natural order as a strong argument, but they would be called "bigots" by people like fluffer.

Why do you consider homosexuality to be unnatural? Gay people consider it perfectly natural...

You are bringing your own prejudices to bear, as was the state in the scout thing.

If you stopped caring about peoples' sexuality lots of these issues would disappear.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Nooooo... my point is that it is NOT the govornments place approve / dissaprove of lifestyle choices the do not harm society as a whole.

increased medicare costs due to poor diets, smoking & substance abuse harms society, does it not? I wonder if there are any health risks disproportionately shared by the gay community? Before you slander me for insinuation, trot out some stats of health care costs among the straight v gay community.

Originally posted by Serial Midget
So gays bother you - BFD. Christian Fundamentalists bother me - the difference is that I recogize their right to exist and prosper within our society. Our country and our society are NOT the sole property of Christain Fundamentalists. Our country was founded by those whom sought religious freedom as a means of escape from the religous tyranny of state sponsored religion. To ensure their freedom to practice their chosen religion, our founders crafted framework to clearly separate matters of church and state. As a result of this "Freedom of Religion" we also have FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

I would personally give my life to defend the continued separation of Church and State.

as i read that, i replaced "Christian Fundamentalists" with "gay activists". And in so doing, it appears the argument of "separate, but equal" rings ironic.

Originally posted by Serial Midget
For me it is all a matter of fairness, the fruits of our democracy must be evenly distributed among our citizens. Every citizen is entitled to full protection under the laws that were crafted within the framework provided by the Constitution that our country was founded on.

a little too breathy for a bumper sticker, and that whole "fruits of our democracy" comment will draw attention.

Don't we already have legal precedent for polygamy? Or lineal consanguinity? They were allowed/tolerated/endorsed by our gov't, yes? A gov't whose laws were "...crafted within the framework provided by the Constitution that our country was founded on."

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
Why do you consider homosexuality to be unnatural? Gay people consider it perfectly natural...

You are bringing your own prejudices to bear, as was the state in the scout thing.

If you stopped caring about peoples' sexuality lots of these issues would disappear.

So do pedifiles....think what they do is natural. not defending them but regarding prejudices and what is natural? That is just an observation.

Just because some consider it "natural" (there is a word up to definition) doesn't make it right....in society.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Why do you consider homosexuality to be unnatural? Gay people consider it perfectly natural...

my opinion be damned. So do tell, what does nature think? Seeing how we both speak (roughly) the same english, you do grasp the eponymy of "nature" & "natural", yes?

Originally posted by fluff
You are bringing your own prejudices to bear, as was the state in the scout thing.

and you have proferred up nothing in the form of constructive debate. Tell me, when the sun set there 3 hrs ago, did it also set on your intellect? I expected much more of you. tsk, tsk.

Originally posted by fluff
If you stopped caring about peoples' sexuality lots of these issues would disappear.

being a parent who's concerned for parenting, i challenge that assertion absolutely. Need i propose the barrage of questions posed by little johnny when he gets home from public school?

 

[towelie]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
So do pedifiles....think what they do is natural. not defending them but regarding prejudices and what is natural? That is just an observation.

Just because some consider it "natural" (there is a word up to definition) doesn't make it right....in society.

Hell- I've seen gay (or at least bi) dogs before. I'd say it is abnormal, but natural. It doesn't hurt anybody else. As long as somebody is happy being gay, leave them be.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by towelie
Hell- I've seen gay (or at least bi) dogs before. I'd say it is abnormal, but natural. It doesn't hurt anybody else.

i bet if you were runnin' caboose you'd be singin' a different tune.

and leave your video library out of this.

 

[towelie]

Burly: Those were mere firecrackers. Amending our constitution is a bomb in comparisson, noise wise.

These people just want the same rights as everyone else. Like you said- they can't reproduce more gay people anyway. It is not an issue worth changing our constitution over.

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude,
I dont know what hole you've been hiding in over the past year or so, but Bush's backing of this proposed ammendment is only in response to the NOISE caused by this nominal portion of the population. SanFran is just the latest example. First it was Hawaii, then it was Vermont or New Hampshire or something, then the whole sodomy deal earlier this year...all these events have contributed to where we are now. Bush isnt making noise, IMO, he's trying to stifle it...which you may or may not agree with...but you honestly cant say he's the one who started it.

As far as Kerry goes, of course he's going to have formulated an answer by now for his issues. IMO, the things Bush has done, by and large, especially with the War on Terror, Iraq stuff...which I beleive to be the biggest issue at the moment, are spot-on, and I'd like to have SOME continuety. I dont want some guy who agrees with something, than later decides it sucks and wants to abandon it, and not see it through. But that's just me, I could care less if you agree or not.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by $tinkle
increased medicare costs due to poor diets, smoking & substance abuse harms society, does it not? I wonder if there are any health risks disproportionately shared by the gay community? Before you slander me for insinuation, trot out some stats of health care costs among the straight v gay community.
as i read that, i replaced "Christian Fundamentalists" with "gay activists".

First: First off Fat White Folks are costing society money but they are not harming anyone but themselves. My healthcare premiums subsidize far more unhealthy "Christians" than homosexuals with AIDS.

Second: Lets substitiute "Christian Fundamentalists" with Christian Activists" both groups (Gay & Christian) seem to be equal opportunity agenda proponents. The difference I see is that one wants to denagrate and marginalize while the other simply wants to be recognized.