http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/05/same.sex.marriage.ap/index.html

Why should he or anyone want to keep two people who love each other from getting married. I don't see the big deal about it.

I never understood it truthfully. I'm just glad it isn't gonna pass.

It's not supposed to pass, it's only there to keep fundamentalist morons, er, Christians up in arms because they'll support next to anything else riding with their favorite bits of moral exhibitionism.

Why is your question limited to 2 and only to people? The amendment excludes far more potential marriages than your narrow definition.

It's not supposed to pass, it's only there to keep fundamentalist morons, er, Christians up in arms because they'll support next to anything else riding with their favorite bits of moral exhibitionism.

Thats a pretty big bucket you are trying to dump this Christian into. This one doesn't give a shit. If two people wanna have that title of being married to show the world they are together, more power to them, same sex or not. Some may not agree, and use the stance that sex is to procreate, but I know that everytime I have sex, I'm not hoping my wife gets pregnant. :)

It's red meat for the far right base, in the face of Bush's sagging popularity and Republican fears of November. I'm not sure that its supporters are buying it (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay3jun03,1,5071907.story?coll=la-headlines-nation).
"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."
...
Social conservatives are disappointed that there hasn't been more action on the issues that were highlighted in the 2004 election," said Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Assn. of Michigan.

He added: "Increasingly, social conservatives expect real action, not just politically timed attempts to motivate and organize the base."
More here (Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. )
Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush.
Still, it's a major point of leverage the far right can bring to bear on the Repubs.
Last month James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, met privately with key Republicans, including Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner, to warn them about the political consequences of failing to promote issues like marriage. "If you forget us, we'll forget you," he said, according to a GOP House leadership aide who was briefed on the gatherings, but declined to be identified discussing private meetings.

Thats a pretty big bucket you are trying to dump this Christian into. This one doesn't give a shit. If two people wanna have that title of being married to show the world they are together, more power to them, same sex or not. Some may not agree, and use the stance that sex is to procreate, but I know that everytime I have sex, I'm not hoping my wife gets pregnant. :)

Perhaps if more of the far right bible beaters had more sex they'd see it the same way. :D

Im just glad they solved all the other important issues before getting around to this one. :rolleyes:

This amendment is so the gays wont breed thereby producing more gays that will then hunt our children down and make them gay. Our children will then grow up gay and get married and have gay kids making the whole world a gay place.

Imagine the horror of billions of gay muslims and billions of gay chinese invading our country and forcing everyone to help them decorate.

Although the world will be decorated very nicely and have things arranged in a very orderly fashion this in a general sense is something that God frowns upon. Of course we know that God frowns on this as most of the major religions of the world have churches that are decorated in a very gaudy way, using to much gold which contrasts with the dark stained glass on the windows.

It is apparent that God likes gaudy as can be seen in his many houses which are otherwise known as churches, and it is a well known fact that most gays, with the exception of Liberace, have a very tasteful, yet not gaudy way of decorating.

History will show that it is all about the decorating!

It's red meat for the far right base, in the face of Bush's sagging popularity and Republican fears of November. I'm not sure that its supporters are buying it (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay3jun03,1,5071907.story?coll=la-headlines-nation).

More here (http://though%20bush%20himself%20has%20publicly%20embrace d%20the%20amendment,%20he%20never%20seemed%20to%20 care%20enough%20to%20press%20the%20matter.%20one%2 0of%20his%20old%20friends%20told%20newsweek%20that %20same-sex%20marriage%20barely%20registers%20on%20the%20p resident's%20moral%20radar.%20"i%20think%20it%20wa s%20purely%20political.%20i%20don't%20think%20he%2 0gives%20a%20s--t%20about%20it.%20he%20never%20talks%20about%20thi s%20stuff,"%20said%20the%20friend,%20who%20request ed%20anonymity%20to%20discuss%20his%20private%20co nversations%20with%20bush./)

Still, it's a major point of leverage the far right can bring to bear on the Repubs.

I generally agree.

The Congressional Marriage Ammendment is something that the Republicans will now be trotting out every couple years to remind the Christian Right who's hand it is that feeds them. It's an opportunity for the rightmost half of the party to squawk about "family values" for a little while, make the Evanlgelicals feel important and listened-to, and get some sound bites on the news of Christian conservatives sounding Christian and conservative.

Then it will fail miserably, just like everyone expects it to. But in November (2006 or 2008) those conservatives with large right-wing constituencies will point to their "Yes" vote on the Constitutional Marriage Ammendment and the video clip of them carrying an "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve!" sign, and the Fundies will turn out in droves to vote for them. Make no mistake, this one is pure political calculation. Nothing more or less.

I personally think that the Ammendment is ridiculous and offensive; bigotry is flat-out evil, even if it's only done for the purpose of securing the votes of the bigoted. Maybe especially when it's done for that reason. There are times that I disagree with President Bush, but it is only when this Marriage Ammendment nonsense comes up that I'm embarassed to be a supporter of his. There's really no way to stop Frist and his collection of reactionary nutjobs from doing this sort of thing, but I wish we had a President who would stand up and say "If you send this to my desk, I'll not only veto it, I'll send the Congressional Messenger back with the bill shoved up his ass sideways".

However, I also think that government should be out of marriage altogether. It should issue civil unions to any adult couple who, in mutual consent, seeks one (this would cover all the legal aspects of such a partnership, including taxes, inheritance, next-of-kin status, etc.). Then, those who adhere to a certain religion can go get married according to that religion's values if they so desire. It's one of those issues that I'm solidly in the Libertarian's camp on.


S

However, I also think that government should be out of marriage altogether.
Totally agree.

The scariest part is, its not just Bush. A recent Gallup poll put 50% of the pollees in favor of said amendment.
Hell even 9% said homosexuals shouldn't even have equal rights to JOBS.

I'd like to believe all of the people polled were those who live in farms and believe aliens abducted them as children in that huge barren intellectual wasteland somewhere in between the coasts - but I'm gonna that wasn't the case.

This amendment is so the gays wont breed thereby producing more gays that will then hunt our children down and make them gay. Our children will then grow up gay and get married and have gay kids making the whole world a gay place.

Imagine the horror of billions of gay muslims and billions of gay chinese invading our country and forcing everyone to help them decorate.

Although the world will be decorated very nicely and have things arranged in a very orderly fashion this in a general sense is something that God frowns upon. Of course we know that God frowns on this as most of the major religions of the world have churches that are decorated in a very gaudy way, using to much gold which contrasts with the dark stained glass on the windows.

It is apparent that God likes gaudy as can be seen in his many houses which are otherwise known as churches, and it is a well known fact that most gays, with the exception of Liberace, have a very tasteful, yet not gaudy way of decorating.

History will show that it is all about the decorating!

You go, Girlfriend!

Just wait until 2008 and put it on the ballot.. then we would see what the American Voters think, and not the few outspoken ones.. I bet it would pass, but that is just me thinking. And for the record, I could care either way. That being said, I am not against it, but I also do not like being forced to accept it.

I find it immensly hilarious that people are flabbergasted when the majority of Americans don't think like they want them to.
It's called freedom of thought. I think differently than you. Neither one of us is right, nor wrong. It's only wrong when you try to force those views (whatever they are) onto me, and try to make me live by them.
You calling me stupid, or me calling you stupid doesn't solve the issue, either.
And just because I don't want to see 2 guys walking down the street in buttless chaps, holding hands, doesn't make me a bigot. Just as I don't want to see a hetero couple all over each other in public as well. Decency should rule, but alas, my decency and your's are different.

If I'm not mistaken Sixee, making laws against something is how one would "force those views (whatever they are) onto me, and try to make me live by them."

Kelraz has a point. The scenario you describe to want is Anarchy Sixee.

But frankly if you don't want to see someone walking down the street turn your head no one says you have to stare and what does that have to do with marriage anyway?

If I'm not mistaken Sixee, making laws against something is how one would "force those views (whatever they are) onto me, and try to make me live by them."

Only if you are in the minority.
If you don't like it, there's always other places to live. Canada is nice this time of the year. So is Mexico.
And for the record, I'm not opposed to Gay Marriage.
I'm opposed to people trying to make me accept it as normal.
It's not normal. It's an "Alternative Lifestyle".
If it were the norm, then Heterosexual couples would be the "Alternative Lifestyle".
Funny how when a minority tried to rule over the majority in South Africa, it was called Apartheid.
When the minority tries to rule over the majority here in the U.S. we call that "Equality".

Better be careful Sixee.. comments like that will get you Negative rep for thinking like the majority..

I'm waiting for a reporter to ask Bush if he thinks Loving vs Virgina was decided wrongly. The SCOTUS ruling that outlawed anti-miscegination laws was greeted with the same sort of outcry. The trial judge of the original case wrote:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
The same sort of argument is applied today against homosexuals.

I doubt it will every come up, but I'd love to see the question put to Bush.

In this country it may be the minority to think Homosexuality is wrong or bad or not normal, but thank god the rest of the world is on the side of the minority and the mentality is changing to a more enlightened one.

It used to be thinking like the majority to approve of slavery, too. And that women didn't deserve the right to vote or do anything other than cook and clean for their man. Thankfully people became more educated and the vocal minority pointed out how absolutely ridiculous the majority's views were - and times began to change.

"If you send this to my desk, I'll not only veto it, I'll send the Congressional Messenger back with the bill shoved up his ass sideways".
S

I don't know, that sounds like kind of a gay threat; are we to infer that Bush is into ass-play? Maybe this explains why he has not pushed harder to shove this piece of dominant legislation through the halls of Congress.:rolleyes:

Haa haa... Brokeback whitehouse

Kelraz .. what you say is all and good.. but there are also a minority of people out there that feel it is ok to use carbombs to convert people to muslim. There is a minority that feel that our borders should be open to anyone from Mexico to cross whenever they feel like it. There is a minority that feel that the media should not be able to shield informants that break the law and give them confidential information. The minority is not always right...

Once again.. you can be any sexual orientation you want to be.. but I should not have to be forced to accept it. Nor, should you be forced to like my beliefs.

Yes but all of those things you listed infringe on other's rights. Homosexual marriage, the abolition of slavery, and the suffrage movement never infringed on anyone else. No one is gonna die because 2 gay guys in Massachusetts get married and enjoy the financial benefits of their heterosexual neighbors.

Making a law against it is forcing your beliefs on them. Allowing it to be legal isn't forcing anything on anyone. They're still gonna be gay regardless.

Once again.. you can be any sexual orientation you want to be.. but I should not have to be forced to accept it.
Ultimately, no one is trying to force you to accept their beliefs. People on both sides of this or any issue may try, they may want you to accept their belief, whatever it may be. That is their right. If legislation or a SCOTUS ruling ultimately allows gay marriage, you're still not being forced to accept the belief that it is right. Just like you're not forced to accept inter-racial marriage being right or wrong. You do have to accept its legality, however, just like people have to accept (despite their preferences) the legality of drinking, smoking, eating meat and so on.

Why do people think that others are "forcing" their lives on people when all they want is equality? I am sure it's much like a white man marrying a white woman back in "the day".

I know plenty of gay people, I know plenty of hetero people. No one has ever tried to push or force me to believe something. However, I have had plenty of bible beaters try to force me to believe their way of thinking.

No one says you have to accept it as right or wrong. I guess I see things from a more libetarian view point. The government has no business what so ever in anyone's bedroom or how they choose to proclaim their love and parternship with another person regardless of sex, race, or beliefs. However to discriminate against people because they are non-traditional... that I do not agree with.

I wish I had a transcript of the West Wing episode where President Bartlett (sp) schooled the talk-radio host that tried to use scripture to diss him. He proceeded to cite chapter and verse four or five points that are conveniently no longer practiced; such as putting a man to death for working on Sunday, or stoning a woman for wearing apparel of two types of cloth (or something like that), or should the NFL players be punished by losing a hand or their lives for handling the skin of an unclean animal, etc.

Procreation is not possible between two men, or two women, so to ensure the growth of the species you make that taboo. So it is written, so it shall be.
Well, the population is no longer in jeapordy any time soon, so maybe the religious intolerance for this practice will go the way of the many other Bible teachings that are no longer followed.

While I may be disgusted by homosexxual practices, I am even more disgusted that our government would consider reopening the door to legislating discrimination against a segment of the population. If that snowball picks up steam, who knows who all will end up being encompassed as it rolls down the hill. Homosexuals....itinerantworkers(gypsies).....non-Christians(was the Jews in a prior time, now it seems to be the Muslims).....hmmmmm, deja vu?

October 18th.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/Profiles/westwing/welcome.asp

"President Bartlet" walked into the large room where most people were standing and talking, but "Dr. Jena Jacobs" who was played by a blond women prettier and younger than the real Dr. Laura (though with the same hair style), remained sitting, the relevance of which you'll soon see.

Bartlet saw her and became distracted, leading to this exchange followed by a sermon from Bartlet: "Forgive me Dr. Jabobs, are you an MD?"

Jacobs: "A PhD."

Bartlet: "A PhD?"

Jacobs: "Yes sir."

Bartlet: "Psychology?"

Jacobs: "No sir."

Bartlet: "Theology?"

Jacobs: "No."

Bartlet: "Social work?"

Jacobs: "I have a PhD in English literature."

Bartlet: "I'm asking because on your show people call in for advice and you go by the name 'Dr. Jacobs' on your show and I didn't know if maybe your listeners were confused by that and assumed you had advanced training in psychology, theology or health care."

Jacobs: "I don't believe they are confused, no sir."

Bartlet: "Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality ‘an abomination.'"

Jacobs: "I don't say homosexuality is an abomination Mr. President. The Bible does."

Bartlet: "Yes it does. Leviticus-"

Jacobs: "18:22."

Bartlet launched into an impassioned diatribe which was interspersed with shots of an uncomfortable Jacobs fidgeting: "Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? [silence in the room] While thinking about that can I ask another? My chief-of-staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

"Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you.

"One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant tight-ass club, in this building when the President stands, nobody sits."

Unlike the real Dr. Laura, this one was silenced and after a long pause she acquiesced and stood up before a proud Bartlet walked out of the room.

And on topic - I'd so have sex with Aaron Sorkin for being such a brilliant writer if the opportunity ever came up.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if our politicians actually had the guts to stand up for what is right, instead of pandering to a lunatic base fringe?

The converse I suppose is true as well....

If Shanno doesnt want someone elses life choices forced on him, why is he so willing to impose his on others? Why do you need to carve into our constitution a provision saying "Gay is bad".
Seems pretty fucking bizarre.

The scariest part is, its not just Bush. A recent Gallup poll put 50% of the pollees in favor of said amendment.
Hell even 9% said homosexuals shouldn't even have equal rights to JOBS.


The same Gallup polls show that less than one half of one percent of respondees actually care about it being a law, however. A huge majority of people don't particularly like gays or want anything to do with them, but only a small fraction of those actively spend any time fuming about it.



Wouldn't it be refreshing if our politicians actually had the guts to stand up for what is right, instead of pandering to a lunatic base fringe?

Where have you been for all of recorded history?

Which of the following people holds a senate seat:


Joe Lieberman: "Although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions."

Ned Lamont: "If two people want to get married, God bless them."

Thanks Kelraz!

That got ya a definite + hit ;)

Where have you been for all of recorded history?

I think you misunderstood me...I was saying in so many words that politicians lack guts and pander to the fringe much as Bush is doing by bringing this to the front.

But if you didn't misunderstand me then I'll answer it this way.

I can only speak with certainty as to where I have been since 1961, as for the previous years of recorded history I am uncertain as to my whereabouts but most likely I was somewhere living amongst strands of DNA.

Which of the following people holds a senate seat:


Joe Lieberman: "Although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions."

Ned Lamont: "If two people want to get married, God bless them."

I KNOW I KNOW...the guy who answered the question amazingly in a way that placed his opinion as against gay marriage it yet also for gay marriage!

Now that shows some serious talent as a bullshitter!

The sad thing is that this is such a heated topic. While I realize that there will always be people on both sides of this, I don't see the problem with two people who care for each other gaining the benefits of marriage. Gays will still be around even if Gay marriage is banned. Why not let them have the tax advantages that come with marriage as well, or will the governement's next step be to take away a Gay persons ablity to purchase real estate, start business, invest in IRAs, etc? All generally tax deductions.

You would think that we as a society and the tolerances we have for many things, this would be one.

I have a problem with comparing this with the Civil rights struggle as well.
Homosexuals, for all intents and purposes, have the same civil rights as anyone else of the same gender. No one can look at 2 guys or 2 girls walking down the street, and point their fingers at them and say, "Look, Homosexuals, let's discriminate against them." (Buttless chaps, not withstanding).
The civil rights movement was necessary because it was evident what was being dealt with; The discrimination against different races of people based solely on the color of their skin.
This is discrimination based on a choice. Now there may be some debate on whether or not this is a lifestyle choice, or something genetic, but my point is this: You can't hide the color of your skin. You can't stop "Being black".
There is a difference between being discriminated against for a choice you make (responsibility) and your race (racism).

Well if the debate exists whereas it's a "lifestyle" or "genetic", then your point could be valid, or moot, isn't it?

Indeed Anterak and oddly enough there's much evidence to suggest it isn't simply "just a choice" but that is a topic for a different discussion.

Discrimination is discrimination.

Webster definies it thusly.

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
synonym see DISCERNMENT


I see nothing that about choices. /boggle

And that women didn't deserve the right to vote or do anything other than cook and clean for their man.

Ahh, those were the days :)

What about picking at the issue from another angle - marriage is largely a religious institution, right? Why is the government passing laws involving a religions matter?

- Homosexuality is already a defined, legal state. The moment the courts ruled in anti-discrimination cases, it existed and it is okay to be gay.
- I think the majority of the issue would go away if the rights accorded to married people - a religious act - were shared among non religious folks in a nonreligious fashion. Put the primary emphasis on civil unions. Or hell, just allow people to designate who their beneficiaries are for hospital visits, life insurance, etc.
- Save marriage for the church, then let the individual church or domination figure out if they want to allow gays to get married.

The whole issue becomes moot if people are forced to look at point 1. Homosexuality is already a legally protected state, so withholding rights is a rather unconstitutional act.

But lets not kid ourselves. Bush and company tout this stuff out whenever it's needed as a smoke screen. "Ooooh, election fraud? Look out, the GAYS ARE GETTING MARRIED? Troops in Iraq killing civilians? I don't know what you're talking about, but THOSE MEN ARE HOLDING HANDS!!!"

My very anti-Bush coworker and myself have a running joke. Every time we read something stupid and new that the current administration has said or done we fall back on the line (said in yer bestest redneck voice), "Well, at least them gays ain't gettin' married!"

Indeed. Since there is some debate, that's why I keep an open mind on the subject (believe it or not). Genetics are something that can't be overcome (yet).
While I do think people should have the right to pursue happiness, there are always going to be consequences for that.
Look at the case of Marriage in general. If you decide you want to get married, there are a set of poceedures you must adhere to in order to become married: i.e. no more partying, finding a good girl/boy, building up money for a down payment on a house...
These are all accepted things that are generally accomplished by someone seeking marriage.
Now if you want to add a generally unaccepted or "alternative" lifestyle on top of it all, then you are adding that much more.
I'm not saying that Homosexual marriage shouldn't happen. I'm just saying thay right now, there are more people in America that don't want ot than do. "Right" or "wrong" doesn't enter into it.
If you decide to pursue this lifestyle choice, then there are consequences for doing so. Untill it is proven to be other than a lifestyle choice, the American public probably won't change it's collective mind.

I think we'll see massive shifts in public opinion over the next 5 - 10 years, easily. Already it's acceptable to be gay, as long as you keep your gayness to yourself. When I was in high school no one in their right mind would have come out of the closet. In schools now we have gay pride clubs, and that's only 9 years difference.

Sorta like that whole color issue. For some reason people's opinions change in a mighty hurry when they meet someone who's gay, and find out they aren't as bad as all the hype says (what, you mean they're normal people who just want to love someone in their own way? teh horror!).

What about picking at the issue from another angle - marriage is largely a religious institution, right? Why is the government passing laws involving a religions matter?

- Homosexuality is already a defined, legal state. The moment the courts ruled in anti-discrimination cases, it existed and it is okay to be gay.
- I think the majority of the issue would go away if the rights accorded to married people - a religious act - were shared among non religious folks in a nonreligious fashion. Put the primary emphasis on civil unions. Or hell, just allow people to designate who their beneficiaries are for hospital visits, life insurance, etc.
- Save marriage for the church, then let the individual church or domination figure out if they want to allow gays to get married.

The whole issue becomes moot if people are forced to look at point 1. Homosexuality is already a legally protected state, so withholding rights is a rather unconstitutional act.

But lets not kid ourselves. Bush and company tout this stuff out whenever it's needed as a smoke screen. "Ooooh, election fraud? Look out, the GAYS ARE GETTING MARRIED? Troops in Iraq killing civilians? I don't know what you're talking about, but THOSE MEN ARE HOLDING HANDS!!!"

My very anti-Bush coworker and myself have a running joke. Every time we read something stupid and new that the current administration has said or done we fall back on the line (said in yer bestest redneck voice), "Well, at least them gays ain't gettin' married!"


Wag the Dog! Now THAT is a great movie!

hehe, sorry reading your post made me think of that :) I agree with you completely though. Let's just make it civil unions for everyone and then they can go and get "married" per their chosen faith/denomination. Why does the government need to make laws about "marriage"?

Indeed. Since there is some debate, that's why I keep an open mind on the subject (believe it or not). Genetics are something that can't be overcome (yet).
While I do think people should have the right to pursue happiness, there are always going to be consequences for that.
Look at the case of Marriage in general. If you decide you want to get married, there are a set of poceedures you must adhere to in order to become married: i.e. no more partying, finding a good girl/boy, building up money for a down payment on a house...
These are all accepted things that are generally accomplished by someone seeking marriage.
Now if you want to add a generally unaccepted or "alternative" lifestyle on top of it all, then you are adding that much more.
I'm not saying that Homosexual marriage shouldn't happen. I'm just saying thay right now, there are more people in America that don't want ot than do. "Right" or "wrong" doesn't enter into it.
If you decide to pursue this lifestyle choice, then there are consequences for doing so. Untill it is proven to be other than a lifestyle choice, the American public probably won't change it's collective mind.


Wrong. Not everyone holds those same values you might see. You are pushing your feelings and views for how you might live your life to someone else. I know many people who marry for reasons other than love, ESPECIALLY those in the military who will marry for that extra little bit of money.

You're living in a dream world if you think everyone follows that "procedure" haha :)

I know they don't. That's whay the next line says:
These are all accepted things that are generally accomplished by someone seeking marriage.
You are right, many people don't do that. And there are many unsuccessful marriages too. There's probably a link between the 2.
I think the Civil Union thing is a fine idea, and I have no issues with it. Now try to get the Gay Activists on board with it. Chances are they'll start foaming at the mouth when they hear it's not a "marriage".

I doubt there is a link, I know people who have followed your line of thinking by stopping the partying, finding what they believed was their ideal mate, saving money/buying a house....those marriages ended as well too. On the flip side I know successful marriages where the couples are broke, party all the time, but they are still together and are "happy". The fact is no one can point to any one factor and say yeah that marriage will fail because of this because in the end the success or failure is up to the two people not their surroundings. You know this as well as I do.

I'm all for civil unions but that's not what this thread is about, this is about Bush wanting to make a "constitutional amendment" defining "marriage". As someone who touts that he's a libetarian I'm suprised you would agree with this. Guess even a political affiliation defines someone so far until they encounter something they don't agree with on a personal level. :D

I didn't say I supported his proposal of an Amendment. I just said the American People don't want Gay Marriage. I think, however the idea of a Civil Union is more palatable to the American piblic.
Big Government is generally a bad idea. Federal Government telling people what a marriage is is a bad idea.
To me, this is something that should be decided on a state level. If it's a popular thing in your state, then make it happen, put it to a vote. At least there would be a chance of it going thru somewhere.

To me, this is something that should be decided on a state level. If it's a popular thing in your state, then make it happen, put it to a vote. At least there would be a chance of it going thru somewhere.


Ahh but the trouble with that is that darn little thing called The Bill of Rights (I'm not sure which Amendment it is) which allows someone married in Maine to be recognized as being married in oh say Alaska.

So if it is left to the states to say that Adam and Steve can be married in their state what happens when they go to Mississippi and Mississippi doesn't have a law accepting gay marriage?

I didn't say I supported his proposal of an Amendment. I just said the American People don't want Gay Marriage.

This is kinda interesting because you have a couple people here in this forum who either support Gay Marriage or don't really care if Gay people get married. If it makes people happy let them be happy. But maybe we aren't 'American People'.

Is this the thread were we need to spread the "love fist" around?

I think so, but keep that thing away from me. :D

"Love Fist" should be like Envoking Hitler's name....
It immideately ends the topic.

"Love Fist" should be like Envoking Hitler's name....
It immideately ends the topic.

Na... Were you thinking of this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_Law?

'Love Fist' and Goodwin's Law 2 differnt things.

LL..


I failed to see where anywhere in this post I was for this law. I said I could care either way. If you can find it please show me. I said that I was AGAINST being forced to accept something that I might not necessarily like.. two different things. I am talking about shit like affirmative action, and other bullshit like that. Soon, there will be guildance out that says you have to have 17% of your workforce that is Gay or Lesbian. That is the shit I do not like.

"The Bill of Rights (I'm not sure which Amendment it is) which allows someone married in Maine to be recognized as being married in oh say Alaska."

It's not in the Bill of Rights. You're thinking of the Full Faith and Credit clause (Art. IV, Sec. 1) -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

However, the following sentence (the Effect clause) states, "And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

This allowed Clinton in 1997 to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). One of the 2 effects of that Act was to allow States the ability to individually determine whether to grant legal status to same-sex marriages.

You realize this is an amendment that is being debated and not a law right? An amendment is our highest form of democratic legislation (what other federal laws can we directly vote on?). The "people" will ultimately decide whether they want it or not.

While I think the amendment is entirely superfluous, I would rather the Senate be working on this (or other dead end issue) than mucking about in some other subject that they could actually screw up. The immigration bill is in conference and dealing with real issues on the eve of election is a recipe for disaster (similar to bad facts making bad law). Look at all the states messing around with their minimum wage laws without any consideration of the consequences simply to "get out the votes".

It's not supposed to pass, it's only there to keep fundamentalist morons, er, Christians up in arms because they'll support next to anything else riding with their favorite bits of moral exhibitionism.

Please be just as ignorant and pigeonhole an entire community based on the acts of some. Sounds just like the people who are against gay marriage.

I am a christian, and I don't care either way.

This entire movement is so ultra hypocritical it sickens me. Look how lucrative the porn industry is. Why is that? Because millions of "heterosexual" people are totally sexually dysfunctional. How many "heterosexuals" have extra marital affairs? How many beat their spouse? It is so amazing that people line up in droves to get inside the glass house and take a turn at throwing a stone.

The bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination. That is God's law. It is his law to enforce or punish. According to the Christian New Covenant, man shall not judge other men, lest they be judged themselves. Such hypocricy blows my mind.

Please be just as ignorant and pigeonhole an entire community based on the acts of some. Sounds just like the people who are against gay marriage.

I am a christian, and I don't care either way.


I'm curious as to why there seems to be a majority of christians and a majority of muslims who are progressive, tolerant and have a more or less live and let live philosophy that they go by, yet they allow their religions to be hijacked by these fundamentalists?

I would think that there would be a more active movement whose objective would be to not allow the hijacking. Is it possible that one the major reasons is that the pastors and the mullahs are mostly part of the fundamentalists?

I think I know what the answer will be but I'm still curious.

Is it kind of "It is intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerant"?

It's a catch. Can't support free speech and individual rights, then beat the tar out of and silence the idiots. Just because say, a few Muslims with common sense don't like the radicals, what exactly would you propose they do? Blow them up? If a person truly believes in the qualities that make this nation what it is, including religious freedom, there isn't a whole lot you can do except vote against these morons, and participate in civilized discussions.

Within the Christian church you'll find most denominations handle business on their own, do regulate their members, and I think most of them do their best to distance themselves from the likes of Pat Robertson. But realize when you say 'Christians' you are talking about not only multiple formal denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc) but Catholics, often Mormons, Orthodox groups, non-denominationals, people who go to church on Easter and Christmas, and every fringe loony who wants to lay claim to the religion (and a few other groups I've forgotten).

A greater curiosity is why atheists and the like who claim to be free thinking and enlightened can't separate a vocal minority from the pack, and still insist on prejudiced and biased thinking.

I'm curious as to why there seems to be a majority of christians and a majority of muslims who are progressive, tolerant and have a more or less live and let live philosophy that they go by, yet they allow their religions to be hijacked by these fundamentalists?
I suspect that many of them a) have a variety of views on the various issues rather than a more lockstep collective view, and therefore aren't as cohesive; and b) feel religion and politics shouldn't go hand-in-hand. Let people make their political decisions apart from religious concerns and Sunday preaching.

It's a catch. Can't support free speech and individual rights, then beat the tar out of and silence the idiots. Just because say, a few Muslims with common sense don't like the radicals, what exactly would you propose they do? Blow them up?If a person truly believes in the qualities that make this nation what it is, including religious freedom, there isn't a whole lot you can do except vote against these morons, and participate in civilized discussions.

I wouldn't propose they blow them up. My best guess on what to do would be more or less to, in a way, shout them down or shout the more tolerant version louder than the fundamentalists can shout their version. History has shown and is currently showing that a civilized discussion is somewhat not very possible with the fringes of most religions.


Within the Christian church you'll find most denominations handle business on their own, do regulate their members, and I think most of them do their best to distance themselves from the likes of Pat Robertson.

Maybe the individual churches should distance themselves from the likes of a Robertson more overtly then.

But realize when you say 'Christians' you are talking about not only multiple formal denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc) but Catholics, often Mormons, Orthodox groups, non-denominationals, people who go to church on Easter and Christmas, and every fringe loony who wants to lay claim to the religion (and a few other groups I've forgotten).

I do realize that the Christian faith covers many different religious sects as do most other faiths including muslims.

A greater curiosity is why atheists and the like who claim to be free thinking and enlightened can't separate a vocal minority from the pack, and still insist on prejudiced and biased thinking.[/

It seems that the atheists problems are more or less with the feeling that religion is being forced down their throats and that violates their rights to some extent. But not being an atheist I can only guess.

Actually, if you want to have some fun with that last one, you could argue that the tables have switched in many cases. Where religious folks at one time forced their religion upon others, now atheists are forcing their non-religion upon others. :)

This is why many of these issues become such hotbeds. Doing something like removing prayer before a football game suddenly becomes a matter of forcing non-religion upon someone. Just depends on which side of the field you're sitting on.

Back on thread, I think the current trend is starting to shift towards more overt distancing from fringe groups, in many religions. Muslims groups for example are renouncing the radical governments...it's just hard to tell which renouncers to listen to.

Actually, if you want to have some fun with that last one, you could argue that the tables have switched in many cases. Where religious folks at one time forced their religion upon others, now atheists are forcing their non-religion upon others.
Atheists comprise such a small portion of the population and are so underrepresented among elected officials that this claim doesn't stand up. Rather, what we see is the hoped for (by the Founders) consequence of democracy and our Constitution: the liberalization of religious believers. We've come along way from Virginia's Dade Code and the persecution of, for example, Quakers and Baptists found in Massachusetts Bay Colony and Rhode Island; and this had nothing to do with atheists exerting their will on the people.

While obviously not the case with Thormir and many, many people like him who have arrived at their beliefs through education and serious personal reflection.

Most "atheists" ive met (not all) have their views springing not from introspection and serious thought, but from apathy and a historical and personal immaturity that doesnt allow them to consider anything beyond what is immediate and 2 feet in front of their face.

As such, people of that type tend not to believe in anything... They certainly cannot muster enough faith in Democracy to vote.

While obviously not the case with Thormir and many, many people like him who have arrived at their beliefs through education and serious personal reflection.

There are those "of the faith" that have done the same thing, and are more faithful afterwards.

Most "atheists" ive met (not all) have their views springing not from introspection and serious thought, but from apathy and a historical and personal immaturity that doesnt allow them to consider anything beyond what is immediate and 2 feet in front of their face.

The same can be said of many Christians too.

The only difference, is that these people were motivated to vote in the last 2 Presidential elections.
No Wait, Bush stole those, didn't he?
;)

The only difference, is that these people were motivated to vote in the last 2 Presidential elections.
No Wait, Bush stole those, didn't he?
;)Stole elections, what? I mean... GAY MARRIAGE! THEY'RE MARRYING PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX! LOOK OVER THERE! QUICK!

Atheists comprise such a small portion of the population and are so underrepresented among elected officials that this claim doesn't stand up



I have to disagree with you Thor.. (ya.. big suprise here). While you might not be represented by legislation, you are represented by liberal judges that feel it is their lone responsibility to fuck with what has work so well for many years and piss off the majority. For example, the seperation of church and state is abused by atheists that want to eliminate something they do not agree with. Eliminate the pledge of allegance, or remove "under god" from it. Eliminate "in God we trust" of our money. Ect... ect.. the list goes on. We have MANY more problems in this country than this. I could argue that teaching the big bang theory, or evolution is now a type of religion, "the religion of atheism.."

Could it be that the decline in religion in this country is directly related to the increase in disrespect and apathy that we see today? I do not know.. but I suspect it. I myself am not a hardcore church-goer, but I do have a respect that there is something else out there. I have seen too much I cannot explain to believe otherwise... For example, call it luck, chance, or whatever you want, but one time I was in D.C. with a co-worker (we are from Michigan), and he commented that his ex-roommate moved to D.C. and he should call his parents to get his address. Not TWO minutes later, he walked up to us in a busy mall. That to me is amazing.. What are the chances of that?

As far as the more tolerant people in the community shouting out, it is almost pointlest. Wild radical memebrs of a society are good press. Normal people aren't.

The Christians that in Orlando that built something like 80 houses for habitat for humanity last year got some blurbs in the paper, and a 3 minutes peices on the news, but the increasing numbers in Orlando of the Snake Christians (ones that beleive handleing snakes beings enlightenment to God) got a half page paper article and was the main focus of the local news program on TV.

I really hate the battle cry of seperation of church and state. It's meaning has been blurred to a point of idiotic proportions. The right means that the church shouldnt have power in the government. Not that no signs of religion should be present in the societys government.

The people that would have In God We Trust, removed and the One Nation Under God removed, could have the same logic used against them. If there is a total seperation of Church and State, then no man in this country could serve in office. As most Americans have a religion of some sort and thus have views instilled by the "Church" and any true aethiests (which imo are VERY few of) couldnt serve as they have their own religion which influences their decision.

I have to disagree with you Thor.. (ya.. big suprise here). While you might not be represented by legislation, you are represented by liberal judges that feel it is their lone responsibility to fuck with what has work so well for many years and piss off the majority.
I look forward to your case by case analysis on this topic and the records of these "liberal" judges. Sorry, shanno, but the Founders very wisely kept religion outside the boundaries of our system of rule. The government cannot endorse religion and should stay well away from it. It's quite easy to demonstrate how governments dominated by religious ideology have not worked "so well for many years."
For example, the seperation of church and state is abused by atheists that want to eliminate something they do not agree with. Eliminate the pledge of allegance, or remove "under god" from it. Eliminate "in God we trust" of our money. Ect... ect.. the list goes on. We have MANY more problems in this country than this.
Like gays, evidently. No atheist has made a serious challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance; remember, it was changed in the first place by the Christian majority ("under God" is not part of the original text). Likewise, "in God we trust" wasn't originally printed on our national currency. I do think that there are unnecessary suits based on religious interjection into public life, but there are many suits that are necessary as well. Flawed or pointless lawsuits aren't the hallmark of atheism. Also note that many Christians are quite in tune with keeping church and state separate. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans for the Separation of Church and State, is a minister.
I could argue that teaching the big bang theory, or evolution is now a type of religion, "the religion of atheism.."
You could, but you'd be stupid and wrong.

Could it be that the decline in religion in this country is directly related to the increase in disrespect and apathy that we see today? I do not know.. but I suspect it.
"It was better before" argument, love it, live it! ;)

I myself am not a hardcore church-goer, but I do have a respect that there is something else out there. I have seen too much I cannot explain to believe otherwise... For example, call it luck, chance, or whatever you want, but one time I was in D.C. with a co-worker (we are from Michigan), and he commented that his ex-roommate moved to D.C. and he should call his parents to get his address. Not TWO minutes later, he walked up to us in a busy mall. That to me is amazing.. What are the chances of that?
Let say as slime as the chances to win lottery. But over 10 millions bidders, 1 won, and 999,999 didn't. We often forget the 999,999.

How many people were thinking at someone, that never showed up?
;)

s most Americans have a religion of some sort and thus have views instilled by the "Church" and any true aethiests (which imo are VERY few of) couldnt serve as they have their own religion which influences their decision.
Atheists don't have religion, that's why they are atheists... aren't they?

No atheist has made a serious challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance; remember, it was changed in the first place by the Christian majority ("under God" is not part of the original text). Likewise, "in God we trust" wasn't originally printed on our national currency



No, but it has been printed since 1864. So, why the big push to get it removed now? Once again it is the case of the minute minority feeling oppressed. And the last I checked, Michael Newdow is making a very fucking serious challenge to the Pledge of allegiance, and he happens to be Atheist. In fact, he started his own church called the Universal life church. Sounds like a religion to me.

You could, but you'd be stupid and wrong

Wow... strike a nerve did I? That comment seems very un-Thormir like. What is the matter, you do not like when people challenge your "religion"? Back on topic, Lets say I am devote religious person... how can you say I would be stupid and wrong when I could argue that most scientist that believe in evolution and the Big Bang do not believe in God? Just because you believe in Evolution does not make me stupid, or wrong. If man has evolved from monkeys.. they WHY are there still monkeys? Why are there no other species of sub-human? Where are the cave men of yesterday? I could sit here and throw out all kinds of questions that you cannot answer, but yet you call me wrong. So, if most scientists that promote evolution are in reality atheists, and you can argue they are a "religion" of sort that are trying to convice people of their beliefs, then you can argue that it violates church and state.

Only if you are in the minority.
If you don't like it, there's always other places to live. Canada is nice this time of the year. So is Mexico.
And for the record, I'm not opposed to Gay Marriage.
I'm opposed to people trying to make me accept it as normal.
It's not normal. It's an "Alternative Lifestyle".
If it were the norm, then Heterosexual couples would be the "Alternative Lifestyle".
Funny how when a minority tried to rule over the majority in South Africa, it was called Apartheid.
When the minority tries to rule over the majority here in the U.S. we call that "Equality".

There is a huge difference between gay people being able to get married and apartheid. The only way this example would hold water was if gay people were getting a law passed that would force people to only be able to marry someone of the same sex.

To those who are saying homosexuals should be happy with "Civil Unions" and not need marriage, there is a semantic problem with that. No one in this country is considered married until they sign the certifacate issues by the government (for tax purposes and other married benefits). So before (or after) you go have your religious ceremony (be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Satanic) you go to the courthouse and get legally married. People who are not religious alot of times just go and sign the document and are married, this is usually caled a Civil Union. Any law restricting homosexual marriage is just effecting this, it is in no way allowing or stopping any religion from performing a ceremony that would then call them married.

And the last I checked, Michael Newdow is making a very fucking serious challenge to the Pledge of allegiance, and he happens to be Atheist. In fact, he started his own church called the Universal life church. Sounds like a religion to me.
He's challenging the "under God" portion of the pledge. He can make a reasonable case of it, tho' I personally don't find it very interesting. I know nothing of the Universal life church, so can't comment no it.
Wow... strike a nerve did I? No, it was just that dumb. It's nothing I haven't heard before.
Back on topic, Lets say I am devote religious person... how can you say I would be stupid and wrong when I could argue that most scientist that believe in evolution and the Big Bang do not believe in God? You could argue it, but you'd have to back it up with data. I'm quite certain that that isn't correct, though members of the scientific community (especially members of the National Academy of Sciences) are less likely to be believers than the general population.
If man has evolved from monkeys.. they WHY are there still monkeys?And here we get to the stupid. If you're descened from your parents, why do you still have cousins?
Why are there no other species of sub-human? Where are the cave men of yesterday?They didn't cut it in the face of competition from their neighbors and the environment.
I could sit here and throw out all kinds of questions that you cannot answer, but yet you call me wrong.Perhaps, but you'll have to try a lot harder. So far, you're still fitting in nicely with "stupid and wrong."
So, if most scientists that promote evolution are in reality atheists, and you can argue they are a "religion" of sort that are trying to convice people of their beliefs, then you can argue that it violates church and state.Sorry, saying it doesn't make it so. Twisting science into religion does a disservice to both and only makes you look foolish.

If man has evolved from monkeys.. they WHY are there still monkeys? Why are there no other species of sub-human? Where are the cave men of yesterday? I could sit here and throw out all kinds of questions that you cannot answer, but yet you call me wrong.

With little search all these questions can be answered with valid arguments, if not proofs, or yet plausable theories.
Man didn't evolved from monkey, they have the same common ancestor.
They are still monkeys because evolution doesn't mean going forward all the time, it means fitting your environment the best. And you'll noticed monkeys evolved in many sub-races.
I could say that there aren't sub-human, but there are alot of human races.
Cave men of yesterday weren't fitting their environment, like mammoths weren't anymore, or like 99% of Earth's species that already disappeared?

And so on.

Besides "How did life appear?" there are little questions that can't be answered today. Regarding evolution, that's it.


/derail off

To those who are saying homosexuals should be happy with "Civil Unions" and not need marriage, there is a semantic problem with that. No one in this country is considered married until they sign the certifacate issues by the government (for tax purposes and other married benefits). So before (or after) you go have your religious ceremony (be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Satanic) you go to the courthouse and get legally married. People who are not religious alot of times just go and sign the document and are married, this is usually caled a Civil Union. Any law restricting homosexual marriage is just effecting this, it is in no way allowing or stopping any religion from performing a ceremony that would then call them married.

But that's not what the fringe loonies on the left want. They want a law that says religious ceremonies should include homosexuality, even if it is against the "laws" of the religion.
And since we all know the ones that shout the loudest get the most camera time...
Incidentally, passing a law to make a minority group have "equal rights" as the majority has a lot of unintended consequences.
Many people think "equal rights" means the right to sit around and point your finger at "The Man" and blame him for all of your problems.
Or worse yet, that society at large owes you something because of the oppression of your ancestors.
How far of a jump would it be for homosexuals (albiet a fringe minority) to start screaming about reparations?
Need I remind you about "40 Acres and a Mule?"
And before you think I'm a nutjob, there are various sites dedicated to the idea of reparations.
http://www.angelfire.com/super/freedom/
http://www.state.nm.us/cvrc/
http://www.redress.org/
Everything form former slaves, to victims of crime, to victims of torture.
We have a society of "victims".

you are represented by liberal judges that feel it is their lone responsibility to fuck with what has work so well for many years and piss off the majority.

I love this little meme. It's another victory for the Rove-esque overlords puppeting the Republican party using fear-mongering to create a consensus over nothing. There are perhaps 20 cases per year, nationwide, out of MILLIONS, in which any potentially new interpretation of law is put forward. This is in fact the exact purpose to which the judiciary exists. (I use the term "new" here broadly)

And yet, because less than one tenth of one percent of court decisions present the chance of possibly being "liberal" (what this is remains entirely undefined, but seems to be focused on decisions that fall in favor of gays, even though these are rarely pro-Gay in the political sense) we now have a rash, a pandemic you might say, of "activisit judges" rewriting the entirety of American law. Examples? Oh, we don't have any of those, but did I mentioned it was happening? Let me repeat it 10 more times in every public address for the next year, by which point it's part of public consciousness by fiat.

Right. Did we also forget to remind you that opium-peddling Chinese are turning our children in psychotic killers with reefer and tht we've always been at war with Oceania?


In fact, he started his own church called the Universal life church. Sounds like a religion to me.

The ULC is a big practical joke.


So, if most scientists that promote evolution are in reality atheists

That's funny, by odd coincidence over half of every scientist (someone who made their livelihood doing research) I have personally met was a Methodist. I don't know if that has to do with where I grew up and went to school or is part of some ineffable trend. I've also met Catholic biologists, Baptist physicists, Lutheran mathmaticians, and Buddhist computer theorists.

Understanding science does not invalidate a belief in god unless your belief in god is predicated on being oblivious to the world around you.

Marriage can be many things, including a chance for friends to outfit your dream kitchen.

Being a Christian myself I can honestly say you'll find more Creationist followers bashing Evolution than vice versa.

Most science minded folks I've met over the years are loathe to spit upon the possibilty that Creation might infact have been the case. Infact a goodly number of folks in that vien tend to think that it's quite possible that God worked with a plan somewhere between the two extremes...hence the many mysteries of both.

Fandros

Infact a goodly number of folks in that vien tend to think that it's quite possible that God worked with a plan somewhere between the two extremes...hence the many mysteries of both.
It's a mini-debate within the scientific community. Richard Dawkins has been a vocal proponent of evolution as an additional 'proof' of the invalidity of theism, but most scientists either disagree or don't take a stand. The debate isn't material to the science of evolution, however (compare that to the debates within Creationism, such as young earth/old earth, which deeply intersect with science).

No don't go being all reasonable, there. We all know being moderate on anything gets nothing accomplished.
You have to be an extreme to get anyone to listen to you.
Try screaming it, and maybe someone will pay attention...

Truth is only found after a relentless search of the facts.

Maybe at the end of our searching and discovery we will see the face of God.... Or not...
But the point of science is not to enter in the search with any set goal or preference of where you are going to wind up. If you say "well God is behind all this" and you go out and try to use data in order to prove your pre-existing belief, then you arent practicing science.

Maybe at the end of our searching and discovery we will see the face of God....
Lleauric, Lleauric, Lleauric...has Star Trek V taught you nothing?!

If you say "well God is behind all this" and you go out and try to use data in order to prove your pre-existing belief, then you arent practicing science.And if you say "well Man is behind all this" you end up with a former vice president making fear-mongering movies about Armageddon.

But that's not what the fringe loonies on the left want. They want a law that says religious ceremonies should include homosexuality, even if it is against the "laws" of the religion.

I have not seen one artical that said that homosexuals were trying to force any religion to allow them to have a marriage ceremony within that religion. Every place I have seen or heard of any type of gay marriage it has been done at a courthouse (where there may be some type of public official holding some sort of ceremony). The problem is religious (bigots) people see this and automatically assume that "them their gays is trying to gay up my religion", when in actuality they are just trying to get recognized legally by the government the same way hetero couples do (this allows them alot of rights that are automatic for family members). It is the "loonies" on the right who are twisting this into some kind of "attack" on religion, marriage, and the red blooded american way of (straight) life.

former vice president making fear-mongering movies about Armageddon.

A republican belly aching about "fear Mongering" that's fucking rich. Great joke akipt!! :p

oMG GAYS... RUN! ITS TEH END OF CIVILIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!

GOP's Sen. Inhofe: I'm “Really Proud” No One Has Been Gay In The “Recorded History Of Our Family”...


Senate Votes For Quick Death Of Bush's Gay Marriage Ban...


Right wing fundamentalists - 0

Fanooks - 1

Not so fast Rover...it's more like a draw. Though the measure was defeated, it accomplished it's task.....telling the less then bright, "christian" right wing republicans "hey if you don't want gay marriage, vote republican this fall".

Haven't been following the news, but word in the shop today was that the measure had come closer than ever before, or had more votes than usual?

I'd like to point out that while everyone keeps dragging in names from the news or cases from the news to support their side, that's all it is. Again, it's the radical fringe members from every group. The Jack Thompsons of the world. This crazed athiest, or that religious nutjob.

Sadly, civil minded folks are in the minority, this I firmly believe. Most people never stop to think seriously about things. This is how, for example, women were kept second class for so long, and just as quickly overturned. The majority will react to lottery ball-style bombardment (the more times I repeat an idea to you the more likely you are to side with me) because they lack the social awareness or mental capacity to digest ideas on their own. This is what political campaigns (and in this case, political smokescreens) are all about. Show a sign on the road enough times and people vote for your issue.

I still think the case comes down to basic civil rights. If we have a government free from religion (supposedly, just pretend), have already ruled equal rights in the workforce and society for homosexuals (we have), then marriage is a step away and obvious logical choice. Natural or not, under law there's no non-religious viewpoint that blocks this. The economy will not crash, the world will not stop spinning just because gays are getting married. Truth is religious folks need to suck it up, and I say that as someone from and living in a very conservative religious environment.

Remove marriage as a government institution. Give every couple a civil union. Want to get married? Go to your (a) church. Gay and want to get married on top of your civil union? Go to a church that supports it. I'm growing more disgusted however with a society that refuses to grant rights to people based on gender.

Haven't been following the news, but word in the shop today was that the measure had come closer than ever before, or had more votes than usual?

From what I was hearing is that a lot of Republicans (the majority presently, if all of them voted for it - it would have passed) voted for it solely because they knew it was gonna tank and are desperate for support in 2006 elections.

Not so fast Rover...it's more like a draw. Though the measure was defeated, it accomplished it's task.....telling the less then bright, "christian" right wing republicans "hey if you don't want gay marriage, vote republican this fall".

This is true...but I guess a small part of me hopes the bright right wingers will see the charade for what it was...a charade.

Remove marriage as a government institution. Give every couple a civil union. Want to get married? Go to your (a) church. Gay and want to get married on top of your civil union? Go to a church that supports it. I'm growing more disgusted however with a society that refuses to grant rights to people based on gender.

This is an entirely rational and equitable solution that will be immediately deemed politically impossible because it makes too much sense.

There was 1 more vote cast for it this time around.

Good on topic video from The Daily Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDG7Pg59o7g)

This is an entirely rational and equitable solution that will be immediately deemed politically impossible because it makes too much sense.

Sad but true. Very good idea Kanyli too bad it will probably never happen =\

Good Discussion here. And I still like the Idea of Civil Unions. Seperating the Marriage from the Union is a great idea.

Good Discussion here. And I still like the Idea of Civil Unions. Seperating the Marriage from the Union is a great idea.

Every once in a while I come up with a good topic. Actually the article was one that I found interesting in and thought I'd share and see what others thought. Good ideas and thoughts here.