just when i think bush can't possibly get anymore retarded..

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 7, 2004, 3:16 am

he states publically that he wants to make an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage

A LOT of people want this to happen because of religious reasons or whatever so i think he is doing it for voter support

the fact is that if he does this (supposedly from a neutral standpoint, not a religious one) it will be hard to make his case, as well as defend the amendment from the supreme fucking court declaring it unconstitutional

i don't necessarily agree with the gay lifestyle, and getting married and all that, but i do believe in their right to do it

this is a large step backward in the humanity and morality that our country shows

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 7, 2004, 3:24 am

Errrm should go in Current events...

But yeah hes truly an idiot...

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...cept for...

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 7, 2004, 3:42 am

yea, well, current events, general.. oh well

also i brought it up and asked my grandma what she thought and she said good, gay people shouldn't be able to get married, and that what happens if they do and they adopt little boys and molest them?

i was like wtf, just because they are gay and married makes them child molesters?

there is a lot of ignorance and misconceptions in the common populace of retards

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 7, 2004, 3:44 am

oh.. and anyone else i spoke to about it had no other reason that it shouldn't be allowed than 'just because' or 'well in the bible it says'

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 7, 2004, 3:53 am

yeah quite an enlightened society...:/

Brittney · Post by **Brittney** » February 7, 2004, 3:53 am

San is just mad cus this is fuckin up him and his Life-partners plans to get hitched this summer. =\

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » February 7, 2004, 3:53 am

Afterall, no other organization knows more about child molestation then the Catholic Church.

The Jackson family comes in a close second.

There was a time when the majority of this country did not like blacks, but people stood up for their rights and they eventually got them. Same applies for women in terms of voting and property rights.

Bush is just thumping his bible for votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3445229.stm

"An increasingly polarised presidential election appears to be in the offing. One of the fault-lines is religion and, in particular, President George W Bush's evangelical faith and how that guides his political beliefs."

They have a word for this, it's called Theocracy.

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 7, 2004, 3:57 am

lol britt.. so when is our wedding date anyways?

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 7, 2004, 4:11 am

rofl.. who gave me 10k vv's

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 7, 2004, 4:17 am

Some damn commie...

Brittney · Post by **Brittney** » February 7, 2004, 5:43 am

Sanaelya wrote:lol britt.. so when is our wedding date anyways?

Soon

emmer · Post by **emmer** » February 7, 2004, 6:15 am

George W. Bush wrote:Let's start a war! Start a nuclear war! At the gay bar! Gay bar! Gay bar!

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » February 7, 2004, 12:09 pm

Give same sex partners the right to insurance and benefits as a couple...but banning gay marriage is not a large step backward in morality or humanity....it reinforces morality.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 7, 2004, 12:13 pm

even if you are in favor of banning gay marriage, how do you justify amending the constitution to restrict a certain segment of the population from enjoying certain legal benefits.

you can call it civil unions or whatever, its the same thing. they should have it. doesnt hurt my marriage if Bruce and Chip are also married.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 7, 2004, 12:41 pm

Regardless of the moral implications, I highly doubt the likelihood of such an amendment being added to the constitution.

the Constitution provides two processes by which amendments can be proposed and approved

Congress proposes amendments.
As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

The states propose amendments.
The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

2/3 of the house and senate and 3/4 of the states is a pretty tough nut to crack, especially considering that when it comes to gay marriages, a lot of states are actually leaning the other way and becoming more liberal in their laws with this subject. It is possible that it could happen, and if it does, it will bring a lot of shame to the founding fathers. I suspect that over time it will be abolished just like prohibition, when people realize how fucking stupid it is that they added a form of discrimination to the same document that declares "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

I suspect that this is a political maneuver to try to garner more votes from brainwashed bass ackwards fucking hillbillies like brotha and cartalas.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 12:46 pm

You're right Xyun, I was so going to vote for John Kerry until I saw Bush propose this.

Gumurok · Post by **Gumurok** » February 7, 2004, 1:38 pm

he is not a very intelligent person

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » February 7, 2004, 1:42 pm

Moonwynd wrote:Give same sex partners the right to insurance and benefits as a couple...but banning gay marriage is not a large step backward in morality or humanity....it reinforces morality.

waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttt a minute, homosexuality is immoral behavior? Are you serious???

CalandraWindrose · Post by **CalandraWindrose** » February 7, 2004, 2:19 pm

Sanaelya wrote: that what happens if they do and they adopt little boys and molest them?

it's important to note - that the main profile of a child molester is an ostensibly heterosexual male...

besides don't we have bigger problems to devote our resources to than THIS kind of stupid shit? Is gay marriage really the biggest threat we are facing? No but it's a convenient distractor isn't it...

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 2:26 pm

We should attach some anti-gay legislation to the Patriot act, then we could just send all the fags to Guantanamo Bay. That's my take on it anyway.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 2:43 pm

are you going to be the unit leader brotha?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 7, 2004, 2:57 pm

Krurk wrote:Afterall, no other organization knows more about child molestation then the Catholic Church.

The Jackson family comes in a close second.

There was a time when the majority of this country did not like blacks, but people stood up for their rights and they eventually got them. Same applies for women in terms of voting and property rights.

Bush is just thumping his bible for votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3445229.stm

"An increasingly polarised presidential election appears to be in the offing. One of the fault-lines is religion and, in particular, President George W Bush's evangelical faith and how that guides his political beliefs."

They have a word for this, it's called Theocracy.

Hey sugar! Nice to see you!

And well said mate! Child molestation is also a problem in the Jehovah's Witness community. Any place where you have male power combined with sexual repression, child molestation runs rampant.

Our laws are designed for justice, not majority rule, and not for religious beliefs. Its a simple case of logic that many people in this country are incapable of. Live and let live, people. Gays getting married doesn't affect your life.

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 7, 2004, 3:33 pm

i was going to vote for him up until he said this, now ill have to research into the other candidates

but everyone that said it is right

how can you sit upon a religiously neutral pedistal acting under the constitution for all peoples of america, to protect life liberty and persuit of happiness, then stand back and say.. well except for all those gays wanting to get married, thats going toooooo far !.. lets ban it with an amendment to the constitution !!!

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 4:03 pm

but sadly ... something tells me that he is gonna be back in office and all hell is gonna break loose and shits really gonna hit the fan

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » February 7, 2004, 4:10 pm

Drasta wrote:but sadly ... something tells me that he is gonna be back in office and all hell is gonna break loose and shits really gonna hit the fan

Wow, nice juxtaposition of cliches. Gotta give you 10 VVs just for de-lurking me.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 4:34 pm

Drasta wrote:are you going to be the unit leader brotha?

Nah, I think I'd have a "conscientious objection" to that

.

Sanaelya, just to save you some time- every single serious democratic candidate is against gay marriage. I'm not sure why you called Bush "retarded" for doing this, seeing as how over 60 percent of our population is against gay marriage (from the statistics I last saw) and, within the minority who do support it, only ten percent of them consider this a voting issue. So politically, it's a smart move.

Gays don't "lose" any rights when they become partners, they just aren't given the ones that people in a marriage between a man and a woman are granted. I guess I'm a moderate on this- I'm against gay marriage but I think if two men or women get "joined" they should be given the same rights under the law as married couples. Call it a civil union or whatever you feel like, I don't really give a shit- as long we're not being forced to morally equivocate homosexuality and heterosexuality by calling this unnatural joining a "marriage." And it's not purely religious. Marriage, like Christmas, has as much to do with tradition as religion.

One other thing- if you'll notice, the senate of Mass. offered a compromise that would have conferred all the rights under the law of a married couple to two people joined in a civil union, with the exception of the word "marriage," and the Mass. supreme court refused.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 7, 2004, 4:40 pm

Sanaelya wrote:i was going to vote for him up until he said this, now ill have to research into the other candidates

More importantly you shouldn't vote for him on the grounds of his disasterous economic policies.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 7, 2004, 4:43 pm

Brotha wrote: Gays don't "lose" any rights when they become partners, they just aren't given the ones that people in a marriage between a man and a woman are granted.

And blacks didn't lose any rights when they had to drink from separate water fountains.

See where your logic is flawed?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 4:56 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Brotha wrote: Gays don't "lose" any rights when they become partners, they just aren't given the ones that people in a marriage between a man and a woman are granted.
And blacks didn't lose any rights when they had to drink from separate water fountains.

See where your logic is flawed?

With that quote I was just responding to his assertion that if gays get "joined" they suddenly lose all their rights, but no, I don't think that proves that my logic is flawed.

We're talking about rights granted to a couple when they're joined here, not some kind of seperate but equal facilities where one is shitty and one is much better. They'd get all the rights (or to be more precise, "financial benefits") as a married couple. It would pretty much be pretty black and white (no pun intended) as to whether they were actually being given said benefits, there would be no room for misinterpretation.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 7, 2004, 5:00 pm

Brotha wrote:
Lalanae wrote:
Brotha wrote: Gays don't "lose" any rights when they become partners, they just aren't given the ones that people in a marriage between a man and a woman are granted.
And blacks didn't lose any rights when they had to drink from separate water fountains.

See where your logic is flawed?
With that quote I was just responding to his assertion that if gays get "joined" they suddenly lose all their rights, but no, I don't think that proves that my logic is flawed.

We're talking about rights granted to a couple when they're joined here, not some kind of seperate but equal facilities where one is shitty and one is much better. They'd get all the rights (or to be more precise, "financial benefits") as a married couple. It would pretty much be pretty black and white (no pun intended) as to whether they were actually being given said benefits, there would be no room for misinterpretation.

The problem with "separate but equal" is not that one is shitty and one is much better. It's the ideology of separatism that is unjust.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 5:08 pm

yup ... seperate and equal for all ... except ...... persuit of happyness for all ... except ... american always fluants its "lets be equal" but when it comes down to it, they descriminate just as bad as the middle east does aganist women ... what is so wrong about giving some people the same benefit that everyone else gets if they love eachother? hmm ?

also when gay marriage does get banned 50 years from now they are gonna revoke it and begin their reverse discrimination policy to try and make amends for the shit they did to the gay people which will just cause more resentment towards them because there will be "Special standards" just like for other minoirity's have the USA has persued and discriminated aganist

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 7, 2004, 5:09 pm

There is a massive difference between not supporting gay marriage, and supporting a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a heterosexual union. Massive.

Additionally, every anti-gay-marriage argument that I've heard is one of three things:
1. Religious and thus invalid.
2. Already defeated by the civil rights movement years ago.
3. Entirely illogical.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 5:10 pm

yes there is, its like basically throwing it in your face to the extreme end that your not a person etc ... it would be like all of our lovely christians getting dumped in Saudi and being forced to live there

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 5:12 pm

Lalanae wrote:The problem with "separate but equal" is not that one is shitty and one is much better. It's the ideology of separatism that is unjust.

I guess we just disagree in principle on this. You can't compare the "seperate but equal" regarding segregation with what civil unions would be. Seperate but equal forced blacks to drink from different water fountains, to sit at the back of buses, to basically be second class citizens. Are you saying that if gays weren't allowed to call themselves "married," that they, while having all of the same rights under the law as a heterosexual couple, would be relegated to second class citizens as well? Marriage is a sacred institution, it's not a water fountain.

Edit: I'm not saying that if the two water fountains were the same during the days of segregation it would have been ok, I'm saying you can't compare the two.

Sueven: The joining of two men is fundamentally different than that of a man and woman. You simply can't equivocate the two, even without moral reasons.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 7, 2004, 5:25 pm

Brotha wrote:
Lalanae wrote:The problem with "separate but equal" is not that one is shitty and one is much better. It's the ideology of separatism that is unjust.
I guess we just disagree in principle on this. You can't compare the "seperate but equal" regarding segregation with what civil unions would be. Seperate but equal forced blacks to drink from different water fountains, to sit at the back of buses, to basically be second class citizens. Are you saying that if gays weren't allowed to call themselves "married," that they, while having all of the same rights under the law as a heterosexual couple, would be relegated to second class citizens as well? Marriage is a sacred instituion, it's not a water fountain.

You need to learn to think conceptually. You are thinking of separatism in physical/spatial terms: separate water fountains, separate schools, separate seats. There are also separate entitlements, separate rules, separate recognitions. You are advocating separate rules for a class of people unlike your own. That is a separatist vision.

Calling marriage sacred is a personal statement and religious statement. You can argue all you want, but religion has no place in our government. You are free to practice your religion as you see fit and others who do not share your religious views should be able to practice their beliefs as they see fit. If gays get married, that does not affect you. Your value of marriage should not be affected by the outside world, just like your religious beliefs should not be any less because others don't feel the same way.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 5:31 pm

brotha ... have you ever heard the term .. think outside the box?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 7, 2004, 5:33 pm

The box is a liberal construct fabricated by tree-hugging hippies and crushed-velvet wearing faggots. To think outside the box is to promote communism and turn your back on your country. TRAITOR I say!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 7, 2004, 5:34 pm

People get too wrapped up in being PC. I have seen some seriously ridiculous arguments over terminology. I have seen people almost come to blows arguing over the words/terms Black and African-American.

I'm not in any way religious but Marriage is an institution of the Church, defined as a union between a man and a woman. I think the Church should be left to define what is or is not Marriage.

A Civil Union or whatever politically correct terminology people choose can apply to everything outside of the Church's definition.

Being a hetero(or what some people will call being biased) I do have reservations about certain aspects/rights of such unions though. People will most certainly bash me for this, but I don't believe people in such a union should be entitled to adopt children. But that is an entirely different discussion so I will leave it at that.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 7, 2004, 5:38 pm

Brotha: Would you be satisfied if the negro leagues still existed separately from major league baseball? Both blacks and whites would still be able to play baseball, earn a living through it, have the status of ballplayers, and so on. Similar rights, different institutions, completely unacceptable.

Marriage- in the legal sense of the United States- is NOT a sacred institution. That is a simple fact. Look it the fuck up.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 5:41 pm

Yes, I understand perfectly the analogy of what're saying. And I'm saying you simply can't compare the seperation that went on with blacks and whites with that of not allowing two men to be called "married." What is marriage? What has marriage always been? Marriage is a concept and there is a definition of it which includes it being between a man and woman. The government can't force people to suddenly change their ideas of what marriage is to include a group of people behaving a certain way that has never been a part of it in the first place. What the government can do, and what they should do IMO, is confer all the rights under the law of a marriage to people being joined in civil unions- that way the government will end the discrimination under the law while not imposing the morals of a few onto many.

Blacks and whites are both the same except for the color of their skin. There should never have been any sort of discrimination and the government was right in stepping in (obviously). But the joining of a man and a woman is different for obvious reasons than that of two men.

Edit: The reason why I didn't go along with the analogy (or thinking outside the box) is because it didn't make any sense when applied here.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2004, 5:58 pm

There should be NO legal marriage and only civil unions. If you religious types want to get married, do it in your god damned churches AND THEN if you are worried about legal issues like child support, welfare, taxes, etc, get a legally binding civil union from the government.

I don't like to bash religion but this is so fucking ridiculous that I can't avoid it. Keep your fucking marriage separate from the state. If you want special considerations for children, then make it separate from marriage as well. It doesn't need to have anything to do with marriage. What you should have is a contract to procreate. If a couple wants to produce a child then they should fill out the paperwork and be given whatever blue light special the government is offering for children at the moment.

Civil unions are contracts that help determine who gets what after you screw up your union or someone dies etc...Marriage is 100 percent religious and should be totally separate from civil unions of which ANY two people should be able to enter and be legally registered with the government.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 7, 2004, 6:06 pm

Marriage is a concept and there is a definition of it which includes it being between a man and woman.

Would it make you happy if the official definition was updated to include same sex marriage? Of course not. What if the official definition was changed to purely same sex marriage? Would that somehow invalidate every man + woman marriage in the United Sates? Of course not.

Short answer = your reasoning has no legs to stand on. You are pussy footing around the word discrimination, when that's all this is about. Seeing as how you're all about definitions, look up "descrimination" if you don't believe me.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 7, 2004, 6:10 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Marriage is a concept and there is a definition of it which includes it being between a man and woman.
Would it make you happy if the official definition was updated to include same sex marriage? Of course not. What if the official definition was changed to purely same sex marriage? Would that somehow invalidate every man + woman marriage in the United Sates? Of course not.

That makes as much sense as 'Let's change the definition of United States Citizen to be everyone who isn't.'

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 6:12 pm

Yes, obviously it's discriminating, ie marriage has a distinct meaning in which not everything applies. What's your point?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 7, 2004, 6:46 pm

I'll put it this way:

IF marriage is defined in religious or sacred terminology, and any group of people is excluded, then it is patently illegal for the United States government to recognize marriage, or confer any benefits for it.

Alternatively, a group of gay people could create a church called the "church of jesus likes it when men fuck each other," and then create an institution identical to marriage except in name (perhaps it would be called "a union which morally validates us fucking in the ass as much as possible") and the government would be forced to recognize it, validate it, and confer upon it all legal rights granted to same-sex marriages.

I might actually prefer that option.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 6:54 pm

brotha is too mentally conditioned to be able to hear the voice of reason its like talking to a wall ... it doesn't understand what the hell your saying so its kinda pointless trying to get him to understand that he's discriminating because he thinks what he's doing is ok

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 7:04 pm

Sueven wrote:IF marriage is defined in religious or sacred terminology, and any group of people is excluded

Don't you get it? No one is being excluded because of the color of their skin, etc. but certain people behaving a certain way that is completely different than what marriage has always been are. It would be like if I had a basketball team and some guy in football pads ran in and started tackling everyone and I told him to GTFO. Yes, that would be discriminating, but if he wanted he could go play football somewhere else.

I agree with you that it's wrong for the government to give certain benefits to married couples that people joined in civil unions (or "a union which morally validates us fucking in the ass as much as possible") don't get.

Deneve · Post by **Deneve** » February 7, 2004, 7:28 pm

Drasta wrote:brotha is too mentally conditioned to be able to hear the voice of reason its like talking to a wall ... it doesn't understand what the hell your saying so its kinda pointless trying to get him to understand that he's discriminating because he thinks what he's doing is ok

Prove that you're any different...

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 7:32 pm

ok sports have nothing to do with this ... its like trying to compare an apple to a squash .... they are being excluded because they are different ... thats all it comes down to BEING DIFFERENT THEN EVERYONE ELSE

dis·crim·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn)
n.
The act of discriminating.
The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

there is the definition ... read it

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 7, 2004, 7:38 pm

Drasta wrote:ok sports have nothing to do with this ... its like trying to compare an apple to a squash .... they are being excluded because they are different ... thats all it comes down to BEING DIFFERENT THEN EVERYONE ELSE

dis·crim·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn)
n.
The act of discriminating.
The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

there is the definition ... read it

Aren't we all different than anyone else?