Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages

Ummm... what else would they be fighting for? Since when is something different, equal?

So, since I am a homo... and I do love standing up for civil rights, of all kinds, let me be the authority to tell *you* what *we* want:

Equal treatment from OUR government.

As for:



You're absolutely right. The gay mafia is infiltrating every sector of this great country. We will only make it better! We will have several new national holidays:
- National Color Coordination Day
- National U-Haul Day
- Babs Day
We will also enact minimum decor standards for *all* households.

</sarcasm>

Since when is fighting for equality an "Agenda"?

While there have been short term gains like Prohibition , Juro is correct. If the amendment passes I would not expect it to stick.

Oh and Juro you forgot to mention "operation toaster oven".

I keep prefixing my sentences with "I think" for a reason, if I was sure of all this I'd have just typed it all the first time and I'd be saying it was my position. (Although Mac hit on one thing I've been thinking about.)

Dunno, you can paint me as a conservative or "right winger" or whatever for the simple fact that I'm considering both sides of this issue if you'd like. But the fact is, overall I'm still undecided, and maybe even leaning towards the "left" on this.

I guess I'm done thinking out loud.

You're putting out broad statements.



I'm merely asking for clarification. What do you think this bigger agenda is?


I did a little more homework and the line was drawn in the sand NOT by gay activists but rather the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It was they who decided "seperate but equal isnt equal". Civil unions, according to them isnt equal, only marriage is equal.

Read here.

If I sound a bit mysterious, it's because I'm still observing the big picture. And anyway I don't want to throw red herrings or speculation into the coversation. (Actually I wasn't planning on getting into this thread much, oh well.)

I know the news, and actually I never said I was accusing the gay activists of having an agenda.

Edit: Although I suppose I can see how one might come to that conclusion from reading here.

The big picture, IMHO is States should decide for themselves. This kind of (negative) federal involvement in individuals lives is unprecidented. Altering the US Constituion is not to be taken lightly.

Have a look at the ERA. Women's rights arent even ratified yet. The Equal Rights Amendment is still 3 States shy of ratification. It's been in the works since the 1920's.

Issues like this have historically been left to the States. Look at marriage all by itself. Age of consent, community property, divorce laws all vary State to State. This would be like the feds suddenly saying divorce is illegal. That by getting divorces you are undermining the foundation of society.

I appreciate that people have opinions against it. You have every right to feel how you do. The US Constitution isnt the place for it though. If it does get in there it will set a dangerous precident. Who's rights will be next?

I'm against amending the constitution for this.

And we all know what happened with prohibition. No one was drinking at all! It was amazing how well it served America. That's why the called it the sober 20's!

--Jon Stewart.

An aside about the incidence of AIDS. For a *very* long time in the UK, the growth of AIDS has been greater in the heterosexual community than in the gay one.

As soon as the danger was recognised the gay community took a responsible attitude and managed to greatly reduce the incidence of the disease.

Dar, didya click the link? Its all about how it failed.

This thread has run on for about a billion replies, so its safe for me to stick in my two cents.

The Constitution was originally conceived as a living document. It could be amended when, for whatever reason, Americans felt it was necessary. The amendment process was designed to ensure that the Constitution wasn't changed on a whim.

There have been studies that suggest that homosexuality is not a "preference" but something that exists within a person from birth. I've heard many times from homosexuals that they did not choose to be homosexual.

Assuming that homosexuals are what they are from birth, is it right to discriminate against them? To deny them equal rights just makes it easier for those on the fanatical right to expand discriminatory practices to others they dispise. Why stop at homosexuals when you can expand it to people of color, women and guys who drive imports?

The most insidious thing about this "proposed" amendment is that it came up as a ploy to win votes in November's election. Even Bush himself said the issue should be decided at the state level back in 2000. Now, since he's totally screwed up the economy, stuck us in a war we didn't have to fight and gave tax cuts to the super rich while over 3 million jobs were lost on his watch, he needs to find another weapon of mass distraction. Why not pick on homosexuals?

As I said earlier, the Constitution is a living document, and it wasn't meant to be amended for political gain. Contrary to what Dubya thinks, he was not elected by a supermajority of voters, and many don't care for the job he's doing. I don't see this amendment ever getting ratified by 38 states.

Cheney has also said (and still says) States should decide but that he would support Bush's decision. I admire him for sticking by his convictions (not).

I was quoting Jon Stewart to back up your point

I myself am agianst this, if anyone wishes to call me a bigot go ahead. I have nothing agianst gays as a group or as a person(im very tolerant infact). But I believe that marriage is a tradition between MAN and WOMEN. I believe gays should have their own type of "marriage", but not the same as men and women.

Awww, but Ryen, then that would be relegating homosexuals to a differnt class of citizen than you are, no?

I find it *very* hard to believe that you "have nothing against gays", yet hold this view.

It's a discriminatory viewpoint Ryen, whether you like to admit it or not.

Oh, and FYI: discrimination is bad, for everyone.

...
Im at a loss for words, this is one of the most terrifying and dangerous lines that anyone could let fly, Chris, do you actually believe you speak for god?? Do you actually believe you know gods mind? From reading a book written by "men"??..of all the lines and words thrown around in this thread..that quote actually scares me..and yes Chris..i am a < as you say>"a believer", i believe god made us ALL in his image, <notice the word ALL> and that politicians wrote the bible to skew morality to thier liking....<shakes head and walks away slowly>

There is actually a special little group out there for those who think they know God's mind. You know, the sort who believe that there should be no separation of church and state. The kind that think that the law should be moulded by their beliefs. Its called the Taliban.

-Juro Kothari

ok uhm...thanks for insulting me? sorry i dont know all about HIV enough to meet everybodys standards, just thought id post and give at it. it would be appreciated if you wouldnt call me ignorant, or say i look dumb, like i said before im not trying to make this an argument, but from reading some of your sarcastic post towards others, it looks like your trying to create an arguemnt. Please Do not call me dumb, and do not read everything i post or anything somebody else post in hopes of later insulting them. that is all i ask of you, cause im sure there is a constructive way of correcting my "ignorance". Aslo in what way did i single out homosexuals? i simply implied that homosexuals take risk, just like every other human being in the world, wheather the same, or different.

p.s.- sorry for trying to contribute too this thread, wont happen again sir.

Wow, I'm just going to ignore you from now on after that statement. I'm totally with Maerl on this one.

PS: WELCOME BACK MAERL!

Ryen,

Your comment is totally contradictory. If you have nothing against a group why would you deny them equal treatment under the law? You may wish to read the whole thread.

Apex:

First, let me apologize if my comments, in any way, made you feel bad. I'm not here to make people feel as though they are ignorant/stupid/dumb. So, please accept my sincere apology if you came away thinking I was bashing you. I'm sure you are very educated and for me to call you ignorant, in a blanket fashion, is just plain rude. I should've been more clear about what I thought you were not well versed in.

My bad. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again.

Now, to respond to your last thread.

I responded in the fashion I did because, in fact, you did single out homosexuals and sex in your earlier post:


You did not "i simply implied that homosexuals take risk, just like every other human being in the world, wheather the same, or different" as you mention in your last post. That's why I responded.

We could go onto a complete other thread about HIV/AIDS and who is, or has been, infected and why. But, that would be hijacking this thread.

I guess for me I find it intolerable when someone tries to drag sex into the equation, which has nothing to do with this entire thread.

Exactly Juro, but however folks in this country seem to have a tremendous problem with overlooking it and seeing what this issue is really about. I had vehement arguement with a co-worker today about this very subject and he just couldn't counter me without commiting flagrant logical errors - i wondered if it was worth it continuing on or thinking he was just goading me. Usually these errors center around associations such as we seen all too much here. Sexual deviance. Sure, you can think that about homosexuality, but just keep it out of the damn constitution!
Some days i really worry, why are so many americans so pig-headed about this issue? Especially concerning our recent history with civil-rights. I can't help but come to the conclusion that we do a piss-poor job teaching our people about our history and the role of our government.
Just give them the right to marry (no exceptions) and let us get on with life.

I so wanted to read and pass on this, but this was too good to pass up.

I can't believe how ignorant your posts has revealed you to be. You obviously don't know what it like to grow up in this country being a minority, nor do you know what it's like to be part of an oppressed minority group in this country. I've read how so many people talk about religious righteousness and attaining equality althroughout this thread, but your statements as well Apex's smacks of the same ignorance I encountered 25 years ago when white folks would judge other people's abilities by the color of their skin...only this time around, conservatives are using religion to mask their bigotry and lack of support of equality of for all tax paying Americans by denying equal rights to non-heterosexual citizens of our nation. You talk all you want what you think marriage is to you, but don't impose it on others especially since marriage has yet to be defined legally at this time...and the fact this fool president of ours is wanting to change our constitution to support his religious beliefs is BS.

I've always believed in the separation of Church and State. This country wasn't just built by Christians or any one particular religion. That being said, why we still have "In God We Trust" on our money has always just meant a term of symbolism to me...a statement of our past and history...and not to be literally taken. If it was meant to be literal, then it should be removed because not every citizen of this nation is Christian nor should we have Christianity shoved down our throats. It's wrong that people are now using religion to define a legal definition of what marriage is supposed to be to all citizens of this nation. THAT is not equality to any degree.

Should we ever achieve true equality, there must be separation of church and state. I know all too well how religion was interpretted during our forefathers' time and how religion is interpretted in our time...and it NOT the same. For instance...and mentioned earlier somewhere in this string...back in the day, marriage meant woman became the PROPERTY of men they married...and I assure you, that is not the case today...no more than the fact that our forefathers were also slavers, but that doesn't justify slavery in our day and time. Today, the definition of marriage is no longer just a holy matrimony, not just a religious right, but a legal title that allows for legal benefits that is not afforded to all tax paying citizens of this country, particularly the gay community...and the time has come for a change.

It would have been one thing if civil unions held the same benefits that marriage holds today for all citizens, but it doesn't...and here lies the problem. I don't see why healthy "normal" families that gay parents have created can't have the same LEGAL rights and protections as a heterosexual married couples...they pay for taxes that support marriage benefits, so why should they be denied the same rights? This is the same sort of mentality only 50 years ago when we posed the question why white and black people should be treated equally and have the same rights. Though some may argue that has yet to be achieved, things have come a long way. This situation regarding equal rights for non-heterosexuals is no different.

It's pathetic that people will use religion to rationalize their bigotry and refusual to admit that they're for inequality. Religion (and we know there are all types of beliefs people have created over the centuries) is hardly an acceptable reason to deny the benefits from tax paying citizens based on sexual orientation in our country. THAT is called discrimination, period. You can preach your god this and your god that, but you cannot deny that's discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This whole issue smacks of '60s & '70s politics all over again...and the same conservative views back then have tried to support segregation or limit and oppress inter-racial relationships and cultural sensitivity in our society. Well guess what, the wheels of change is neverending...and in this country, oppression has always been defeated.

Bottomline, marriage wasn't the primary issue like the media has played it up to be, but rather equality. I'm sure if civil unions were given the same equal benefits as marriage did, the issue of gay marriage wouldn't be such a big deal...but that's not the case, and that is why gay people want the right to be married. They'd like to have the peace of mind of knowing that if their partner is in failing health that their partner can be at their side, have rights to take direction of care should their partner's health fail...basically have all the rights a heterosexual couple would have in such situations. Non-heterosexuals pay the same taxes that create the benefits that marriage legally affords citizens...why shouldn't they have the same rights?

Regardless whether you don't agree with non-heterosexual life styles, this issue at hand has always been about equality. Unfortunately, it appears that some of you who're not of an oppressed minority lack the capacity of understanding, education or compassion to know when inequality is at hand. It's funny how that all changes when you're on the "short end of the stick". Know this though, no matter how you try to oppress any minority group who're law abiding citizens of this nation, they will always rise to the occassion and succeed...one way or another...just like how citizens fought against segregation, fought for women's rights...and now for equality for non-heterosexual citizens alike...unless of course you're one of those that think homos are only good for such things like philosophy and higher education (Socrates & Plato), arts & design/innovation (Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Tchovsky) or media (Malcolm Forbes).

SL being as fantastical as it is, it amazes me how ignorant bigots can still taint this environment...and then use religion as an excuse for their ignorance instead taking accountability for their lack of wisdom.

Well Cyrus, some are saying that even a civil union with legal rights equal to marriage isn't good either.

I have a question though (for anyone): Do you think this changes the definition/meaning of marriage?

I think that being gay or lesbian is acceptable, you can not help it, priests can not be married in most relegions as they are "married to god", God I think is a man, may be a woman, I feel that people should be accepted, president Bush may be gay for all we know, and is afraid to admit it, I am not gay, but I want to make this world as close to "perfect" as we can.

It is not my place to say this, but I think that Linden Labs should make a "wedding chappel" in Second Life, and avatars could get married, and have a double "allowance", or whatever you want to call it, like the funds would be shared.

The world today, what is it going to? I feel that if I was gay, I should have the right to marrage and to be able to admit it and feel like an everyday person. I am not gay, so I probably feel differently, I am the kind of person that accepts people for who they are. I think that Second Life should not turn into a place of law, too. I think that we should not worry, and sex and marrage is a god given right, and one way or another, we will all get what we want.

Good luck to all gay/lesbian couples in their quest of marrage,
Mitchell