Falstaff

I was so relieved to see that the best president that this nation has had in a long while is finally putting to rest the undefined issue of marriage. As an institution and a moral and emotional contract between two heterosexual people, the issue is no longer in doubt. Gay people cannot demand and get more legal rights than heterosexual people. Morally and legally marriage must be protected, Gay people cannot force their politics on a nation that is desperately trying to come to terms with other issues that the Gay agenda is forcing upon us. I am absolutely tired of hearing about Sodom and Gomorrah (San Francisco) and the mayor. It is about time to turn the tide on this movement to force Americans to accept the gay agenda and alternative lifestyles, Americans have the right to wake everyday and face the world free from the sexual politics on televsion and in our schools. I dont give a damn what Gay people do, what they have to say and how they feel about their relationship to all facets of their lives. No one faces more harrassment now than deeply religious heterosexual people that openly criticize the Gay agenda. It is time for Bush to spell it out and amend the consitution, eliminating this legal loophole that allows Gay people to seek more economic advantages for their movement to normalcy between them and the heterosexual community which by the way is the majority, despite what you might see and read from the popular media. If the Gay agenda as it were remains a volitale entity we will see a backlash against it by righteous heterosexual groups both religous and less spiritually defined to squash it. The Gay agenda can remain vigilent against discrimination and persecution without forcing themselves upon us all. I am tired of the Gay agenda at large trying to penetrate the fabric of a nation that is struggling in many ways to come to terms with accepting responsibility for self determination. Keep sex out of politics and allow all of us the right to choose our lfestyles without becoming a political football for either side. War is being waged on Capital Hill now between right and wrong, good and evil, moral and corrupt, America better wake up and see it for what it really is, the popular media and the gay community seeks to trivialize marriage and destroy the very core of what America is built upon. I believe in freedom of expression, the inalienable right of self determination and the pursuit of happiness, but lets keep it private, and behind the bedroom door where it belongs.......
Homosexuals can have life partners, social contracts and enjoy privacy and I will let them, I dont give a flying rats ass what they do with their bodies, just keep it out of politics and the media....

__________________

raid517

It aint my thing - but I say let people be, let them do as they want. It's no one else's business. If they want to get married then fair enough. To me all I see is the abject hypocricy of people who have often been married on multiple occasions complaining about the so called 'sanctity of marriage'. All this does is expose their motivations for what they really are, which is a thinly veiled predudice and hatred towards gay people.

Anybody who thinks that the fact that the right have found a new way to attack gays needs to have their head looked at.

GJ

Falstaff

the right isnt attacking gays
quite the opposite
the hypocracy is that without the economic advantages of marriage between heterosexual couples the Gay agenda would have a strong argument for marriage. The issue is the institution of marriage. Gay marriage is a social contract and cannot be sanctioned legally as a union between man and wife.
cojoined, socially contracted, life partner, whatever....that is their business, but it isnt marriage. Bush will put an end to this. Their must be a moral center to our nation and to our government, or all is lost...it begins here and the line must be drawn somewhere....

__________________

raid517

Mmm... And how many times have you been married Jeff?

GJ

UnIcOrN

Correct me if im wrong, but being gay dates from the Roman Empire, where it was very common.

Like raid517 i also say let people be like how they are.
If you're so about moral in your country, work first at more pressing matters instead of attacking gay people. Although you say "the right" (who ever they may be) aren't attacking gay's, to me it looks like a crusade of some sort. To make a law against people disallowing to marry, show's how simple minded some can be. Who does bush think he is ? Leader of the world ? (The idea alone is hilarious)

To me this is just a desperate attempt to win some votes for his re-election.
Imho Bush needs to be examined and i really hope he isn't elected a second time, that would be a real disaster for the world.

Just my 2 cent's

__________________
[COLOR=white][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/COLOR]

krazy1

I can tell you this, My main reason for NOT voting for Bush in the up coming election is becasue of his push to put this into the constitution. Like others have said here, let people be and let them do what they want. If the gays want marriage then fine. I have no issue with it. I have 2 relatives that are gay and I support them 100%.....

__________________

digerati

Actually homosexuality dates back even farther. But then again so does child prostitution, so I don't see that as a very good example.

It shouldn't be called marriage because it isn't, it's a union between two people in love, who love each other fully and want to be together, not a man and a woman.

Dyre Straits

Quoting myself from another thread on this topic:

What has forced the issue is the activist judges [and the situation in San Francisco] who are attempting to essentially redefine the meaning of 'marriage'. It's ALWAYS been the union between a man and a woman. To try to redefine marriage as a union between any other two entities is an injustice upon society.

It is because of the push to redefine the relationship that has prompted many legislators -- as well as our President -- to make marriage a constitutionally defined entity of being only between a man and a woman. This would put a halt to activist judges who are writing and creating law -- rather than upholding and properly interpreting it.

Should people wish to form other unions, they have that option via signed and notarized 'Powers of Attorney' that give one another legal rights, spelled out in the documents, so that decisions can be made on the behalf of the other under those circumstances defined therein.

We do not need, and should not have, parties of the same sex calling their relationship a 'marriage'. It simply isn't so.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"

Someone answered, "Five."

"No," replied Lincoln, "calling a tail a 'leg' doesn't make it leg."

__________________

raid517

Well I don't see the harm in it is all. Most of you guys will be married more than once in your lives - its a sad fact but its true. So that kind of blows the notion of any devine sanctity of marriage out of the water - and just leaves a few rightwing Christian reactionaries babbling a bunch of mumbo jumbo from their so called 'scripture', about how some being that lives in the air said it was OK to hate gays.

They used to have the same restrictions during the days of slavery in America where it was forbidden for slaves to get married.

I sometimes wonder if this president wants to take America back into the stone age rather than move forward with everyone else into the 21'st centuary.

GJ

Falstaff

tsk tsk, has nothing to do with the issue I am talking about, nor does have any bearing on the topic I am addressing, I take marriage very seriously, any further comments about my personal life could be construed as a personal attack, if anything, I am a proponent of the institution of marriage, regardless of how others trivialize it. I am by no means an expert on the institution of marriage, more like a statistic in a realistic sense, more like an example of how the american culture is eroded by the complacent and mediocre behaviour of our media..I have never fogotten that the popular media is driven not by values or decency or even a need to report facts, it sells products, it represents big business, and since the Gay agenda represents some political and economic power now, the media responds to that. Popular media and its consituents have exacerbated the struggle for truth.

__________________

UnIcOrN

I know that (child)prostitution dates also back that long, but that's not the topic. (Child Prostution is wrong)

In the Netherlands 2 people are free to decide if they want to marry.
Man/Woman - Woman/Woman - Man/Man

Is it so hard that 2 people of the same gender want to make their love known ?
If they want to marry let them, sure in the beginning it will be a hype, after awhile it will be more common and less frontpage news.
The problem is by forbidding it you only throw fuel on a fire. It will backfire. You can't forbid one group of people not to marry and another (hetero's) are allowed to marry.

__________________
[COLOR=white][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/COLOR]

zerodamage

What I find ammusing about this is that the same people who are saying Marriage is a failed institution with the divorce rates and etc want gays to be able to get married. My questions is why? Do these people wish for the gay community to have the same right to divorce as much as straights so they can fit in? Or is this a two faced attempt at destroying another normal institution. Common sense tells me that if these people think Marriage is so bad with all the divorce that they should be trying to abolish Marriage all together, not trying to get homosexual the same rights to misery and divorce. If these people who keep saying marriage is horrible were for real, they would be requesting the abolishment of Marriage altogether.

raid517

Erm... That is quite a confused point of view. I think Gays should be allowed to get married as well as divorced, yes certainly. All I am saying is that gay people should have the same rights as the rest of us - including the same rights and benefits that Jeff appears to originally have objected to. Just because I believe in marriage for those who wish it, regardless of gender -and the divorce rate in the US is high - I am not sure how you connect the two?

Equal rights means equal rights to get married and slowly grow to despise your partner - and for it all to end in divorce too. That's what equal rights is. It means access to the good as well as the bad aspects of society.

And Jeff I didn't set out to 'personally attack you' - but really I'm sorry if I can't take you seriously. You have shared some things with us here in the past - and you being a sailor and all - well you know what they say - a girl in every port etc...

Marriage just does not mean what it used to anymore, with nearly one in every two marriages failng - and much fewer people getting married over all - the so called institution of marriage has already changed almost beyond recognition. If it is to survive at all it must adapt to the new realities that confront us in the 21st centuary.

You can't have it both ways, you can't get involved and divorced - or sleep around or whatever and then come back later and bitch about the sanctity of marriage. It is nothing short of rampant hypocrisy. All it is is a thinly disguised excuse to express your own inate hatred and mistrust of people who are different than you.

Besides which a buch of you guys who come here and argue about this will no doubt go off in an hour or two to look at some porn. It's a common male fantasy to watch two women having sex. If that is ok then why do you have a problem with the rest of it?

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy

I don't ...

why? becouse you saying give out a mass amount of insurace, social security, medicare, etc it'll put a even greater burden to the system... you see taxes will have to increase quite a bit to compansate and it's not fair to everyone else.

were not here to sever the needs of the few but of the many a few people seek to make it a national thing gay marrages in all states becouse even just one does it! even though like in calaforina 2/3 thierd the states populating voted aginst gay marrages and it is illegal there... you have a gay /pro gay mayor and a openly gay judge trying to legalise it. If it had been a staight jude or a unbiast judge you would have seen calfornia law upheald....

there are gay groops who are agenst this why ? becouse it's illegal and the way thier going about will bring a ban?

whos falt is it? a small group of people breaking the the law in ONE state

gays are seeking marrage thier seeking the "benfits" of marrage it'sd tottally diffrent matter

the should make marrage and civil unions

__________________

Dyre Straits

I'm not even stressing that much about the 'sanctity' of marriage? It's the definition of marriage that's at stake. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. We do not need to redefine it to include same-sex unions.

__________________

Falstaff

touche dyre, it is the institution of marriage, it's sanctity not withstanding depending on ones faith, but rather how it's relative importance is diminished because as a whole the Gay community uses and has used to further the Gay Agenda. My feelings not withstanding, marriage is between a man and woman, anything else is a social contract in my view

__________________

raid517

Well that's a very fine line. On what basis do you base your objection then? If it's not moral (because that would make most people hypocrytes) then what?

I doubt that the argument about it costing society any more money is really all that valid. Gay couples pay taxes just like everyone else. Besides which it is still wrong to deny them access to the same priviliges as everyone else. Even if marriage were some how made illegal for gays, they should still at least be afforded the same rights as married couples.

Lol anyway... if you guys ever get bored with this debate - there are a few hot lesbian porn sites I could point you to.

Hypocracy never looks good on anyone.

GJ

Al_Vampyre

Setting all religious viewpoints aside (because they should never encroach on legal matters) feel free to deny gay couples the right to call what they have a 'marriage' but they should be afforded the same rights as any other couple who make a public commitment to each other. Hell, I wouldn't do it but I;ll still stand for the rights of those that wish to!

__________________
"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad" - Brian O'Driscoll - Ireland Rugby Team 2009 Grand Slam winning Captain.

digerati

They do, it's called a civil union.

Falstaff

no RAID 517, it wasnt about rights, it is about the Gay Agenda forcing their agenda, a sexual agenda into the media, into the amendment for marriage that Bush is pursuing, and into the homes, the schools and the churchs.

__________________

raid517

Like I said its about choice of life partner too. You can say that gay men have the right to marry a woman as clearly it is not in their make up to do so.

Do you consider the right to marry a woman a 'special right' that the law can give and take away from you? Or are you saying that you are happy with the idea of Gay marriage in principlal - so long as this doesn't confer the same level of rights on Gay people as it does on others? If so I have to say I find it despicable - I mean what is it with you damn interfering right wing Christian republicans - why do you have this unnatural facination with curtailing human rights?

Prove to me that there isn't one among you who isn't a damn hypocryte - who hasn't at some point screwed around, who hasn't had sex outside of marriage - who hasn't lusted after another mans wife - and then explain to me in this context why you think marriage is anything more than a mode by which two people can make a lasting (though often still temporary) comittment to each other.

You guys can pretend to me all you want - but I can spot predudice a mile off.

And if gay people do want to have their issues addressed in public, in the media and in government - then why shouldn't they? It is a right afforded to us and to everyone else. After all they are not asking for any special rights, they are just asking for the same rights as us.

I cannot see how any reasonable peson could possibly object to this.

GJ

Highwood

Marriage is a heterosexual institution. Why can’t gays come up with there own institution?

Can someone please explain to me why a lobby group whose whole existence is based on deviant sexual behavior is one that we should be paying any attention to?

raid517

Well there you go. Outed at last. Biggot!

GJ

Highwood

I ask two legitimate questions and that makes me a Bigot?

For the record, I’ve never admitted this to anyone, as a preteen I was molested by a gay male. Don’t tell me because he molested me he isn’t necessarily gay, he is one of the most well known gay rights advocates in my home town. For me every time the gay lobby gains wins a court battle or gets another piece of gay rights legislation passed it is one step closer to legitimizing the horrible things that were done to me as a child. In my opinion granting any special rights on the basis of sexual orientation is a very dangerous and thing.

zerodamage

Lets keep this civil please. Thank You.

Raid517, check your PM.

raid517

Well I'm sorry you were molested as a child - although a public forum like this is an odd place to make such a confession - but I'm sorry to say that there is absolutely no link whatsoever between paedophilia and gay people.

A paedophile is a paedophile - often they will sexually assult both young girls and boys - their sexual preference is for children - which really is sick and despicable.

Your questions are not legitimate - indeed they are uttely bogus - because you try to establish a general link between gay people and child molesters. I have had several gay friends - although I am straight myself, and all of the people I have known have been decent kind and law abiding people - and I don't doubt that they would rather have killed themselves than harm a child.

I am happy to 'keep things civil' - and if you have anything to say to me I would rather you said it here and not in PM. Attitudes like this need to be shown up for the BS that they are.

You can send me as many PMs as you want - but I am still not going to stop speaking up for the rights of people to choose their own life styles and to love who they want. Love and happiness are rare commodities in this world. Who I wonder do you think you are to say that you have the right to take that away from anyone else?


GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy

were were

bushs hand kind of is forced in this matter by illegal action by a gruop of gays a mayor and a judge in CA

us constituin and law are based on the bible and religous belives ...

I like watching people say seperation of chinch and ste when the us was founded on the churches values! and just today i was watching the revern make his begining speech/paryer in the house , then they switch to the real pleage aleagange with "under god" in it... and then they get down to bussiness

to do define marrage between man and a woman is is the sprit and values of our founding fathers...

not to meantion in many religons homosexual acts are sins, it's not consider moral and if you use ca as a guage over 2/3's the nation is against it... and 2/3's is in a state that sems to have more accptace then other states, other states wer the people have more traditionl values like on the "bible belt" youd see close to 100% aginst it

why should the many bow to the specail interest and illmoral and illeagal actions of the very few?

the calfoania judge should be removed imeediately and the mayor chaged with breaking the law 1 count for ever gay marrage that took place that should dd up to life inprosonment with out parol.. but will anyone punsih these people for breaking the law? that it is their job to uphold?

if the law wont enfocre the laws who can? or will?

__________________

raid517

Because Blacks were a minority too during the 60's and their rights were equally repressed. They also were said to have lower moral standards and values than the rest of society - hence why they couldn't be intergrated with the rest of society. No doubt some of you guys still believe that - but the rest of the modern world has moved on.

It will and should continue to do so - and hopefully in 20 years, gays will have the same level of acceptance in society that many ethnic minorities enjoy today.

GJ

zerodamage

This thread is now closed. I expect any future discussions on this topic to stay civil and name calling not take place.

Raid, you are taking this topic too personal. Please in the future calm down and respect other people's opinions just as your opinions are respected.