Anti-gay amendment soundly defeated

[labrys 0]

Quote

Quote

Why of course, that is the goal. Obviously we're fighting the gay marriage amendment so that we can marry our cats and goldfish.

Get real.

Quade he has a vaild point...At what level do we no longer allow people to get married? Can a father marry his daughter or son?

Can a brother marry a sister?

I mean if you REALLY want freedom to choose...Then you would have to support these situations also.

So do you support the right of a father to marry his son?

Serious question and I'd like a serious response.

Hi Ron
Most discussions about gay marriage just make me dizzy and angry. I oppose a Constitutional ban against gay marriage. Not because I'm gay, but because I thinks it's stupid waste of time to modify the Constitution over a non-issue.

I think it's a non-issue because adding an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage will achieve nothing more than to prevent gay couples from calling their unions "marriages" officially. Just look at the debate here about the semantics. Who cares?

It won't stop gay couples from fighting to get the government from recognizing their unions and affording them the same rights under the law as other legal unions. It's a big waste of time and money and energy.

In my opinion, the only real blow that could be dealt to gay couples fighting for the right to the same legal status as other couples would be a Constitutional amendment specifically banning the government from recognizing any type of civil union between same-sex couples. I really don't see that happening.

As far the the chicken-little stuff about having to allow polygamy, bestiality, and inter-family relationships. Why? This is a fight about legal civil unions between same sex couples. Enough people care about the issue that it's out here in the public and open for discussion and debate.

If the people of the United States ever decide to legalize same-sex unions that all they're doing and nothing more. It doesn't mean that now they have to let Keith marry his cats. Keith's going to have to get enough public interest going to get that law passed. And he's going to have an uphill battle.

If enough brothers and sisters wanted legal unions or enough people wanted polygamy to be legal, then we'd be debating that and not same-sex unions. Just like poor Keith, they can bring their issues to the public forum and fight for their own rights.

I also don't give a rats ass what consenting human adults do in their bedrooms. It has NOTHING at all to do with asking the government to afford same-sex couples the same legal rights that hetero couples. Anyone gay or straight knows at at some point in a relationship, there ain't all that much action happening anymore anyway.

Using sex as the only criteria for homosexuality is like saying you'd be more likely to let same-sex couples have the same rights if they agreed not to have sex. Homosexuality is about sexuality, not sex.


Can a father marry his son? No, of course not. Letting a man and woman have a legal union didn't mean that all of a sudden it was legal for a man to marry his daughter, did it? It's the same. Parents can't marry their kids. If there were enough parents out there who truly felt that being able to marry their kids was an issue, we'd be debating that, wouldn't we?

*half-assed spelling edit

Owned by Remi #?

[labrys 0]

Quote

OK, so a guy can marry his son if the son is 18 and agrees to it?

Again.. by this logic, if it's legal for a man and woman to have a union then it's legal for a brother to marry a sister or a father to marry a daughter.

We all know that's bullshit. If letting a man and woman marry means anything goes between men and woman, why isn't it implicitly legal for a man to marry his daughter? This logic JUST DOESN"T WORK!!

Owned by Remi #?

[Casurf1978 0]

Sorry if I joked, and I do see your point. But to bring up interacial marriage again and this was HUGE back then and more violently opposed that gay marriage. Also laws were written to oppuse interracial marriage. But did interracial marriage open up the flood gates? Did any negatives come out of it? One Alabama rep still opposed this back in 1999, he even implied that the kids would be screwed up in these unions.

[Rebecca 0]

The whole issue just pisses me off.

Two people love each other, want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, and want it recognized? Great!
They're the same sex? Oh, in that case, no. It'll ruin the 'sanctity' of marriage which straight couples through the ages have been admirably honoring while raising children in loving environments to become responsible, law-abiding, straight citizens. Gay couples could never do that.

PUHLEEZE!! This shouldn't even be an issue. Hell, if anything, gay marriages/ unions would probably improve the overall state of unions in our country.

It's absolutely none of anyone's f'ing business.



(just a random rant directed at no one in particular)

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

No I dont support it. I guess your right, if we allow gay unions it will open up the flood gates and pretty soon fathers will marry daughters, sons/mother, etc. Just like they said in the 50s with interracial marriage and the downfall of western civilization.

See, instead of seeing the potential problems you joke.

If you allow this, then you have to allow brothers, and sisters to marry.

I mean who's buisness is it anyway right?

Then you have to allow Dads to marry their kids...I mean who's buisness is it right?

For the record Gay marriage WILL happen, just like ALL "rights" movments have happend.

That does not mean a person should not voice or fight for what they think is right.

And just because it will happen doe not make it right....I mean a guy can't smoke a joint in his own home....Thats limiting his personal freedom right?

So I guess all drugs should be legal right? I mean its a person right as long as they consent right?

As usual you miss the point.

This is not about sexual relations - you don't need any kind of formal union to screw.

It is about creating family. Sons, daughters, brothers etc. are ALREADY family and have rights of visitation, inheritance, etc. So there's no point.

As far as your pet sheep or goldfish is concerned, I doubt they are in a position to give informed consent.

If two unrelated people of either gender wish to formally declare themselves a family unit and have all the rights and obligations the state grants to families, that's just fine by me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[labrys 0]

Quote

This is not about sexual relations - you don't need any kind of formal union to screw.

It is about creating family. Sons, daughters, brothers etc. are ALREADY family and have rights of visitation, inheritance, etc. So there's no point.

Well put. This is what I was getting at above, I just didn't have the ability to put it into words it as well as you have.

Owned by Remi #?

[Ron 10]

Quote

How do you feel about our government basing tax, social security, and inheritance laws on religion?

Its based on Civil unions "don't cha know".

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

If the people of the United States ever decide to legalize same-sex unions that all they're doing and nothing more. It doesn't mean that now they have to let Keith marry his cats. Keith's going to have to get enough public interest going to get that law passed. And he's going to have an uphill battle.

If enough brothers and sisters wanted legal unions or enough people wanted polygamy to be legal, then we'd be debating that and not same-sex unions. Just like poor Keith, they can bring their issues to the public forum and fight for their own rights.

It may not be the SAME thing, but it is the SAME issue.

You have two people that want to be married. They are both male and right now they are not allowed. They want the rights to the same treatment as a hetero couple.

You have two people, they are brother and sister. They want to have kids together and be husband and wife. Again it is not allowed.

You are saying that just becasuse the gay couple has more support its one thing, and the second its another?

Nope, same issue. In this above case the brother/sister already have a few of the benefits of a couple...But still its the smae issue.

If you don't care what people do in private, and want to support gay unions...Then you should support black to white, incest...ect. I mean if they ALL agree its none of your buisness right?

Quote

Can a father marry his son? No, of course not. Letting a man and woman have a legal union didn't mean that all of a sudden it was legal for a man to marry his daughter, did it? It's the same. Parents can't marry their kids. If there were enough parents out there who truly felt that being able to marry their kids was an issue, we'd be debating that, wouldn't we?

So just cause not enough want it its a seperate issue?

I don't agree.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

As usual you miss the point.

No I get it, you just fail to understand any view but your own (As always).

Quote

If two unrelated people of either gender wish to formally declare themselves a family unit and have all the rights and obligations the state grants to families, that's just fine by me.

Just because its OK with you does not make it OK with everyone. You always have a hard time seeing your view is not the only view.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If two unrelated people of either gender wish to formally declare themselves a family unit and have all the rights and obligations the state grants to families, that's just fine by me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just because its OK with you does not make it OK with everyone. You always have a hard time seeing your view is not the only view.
_________________________________________

So Ron,

What exactly is wrong in your opinion with two loving male adults wishing to formally declare themselves a family unit?

[labrys 0]

Quote

So just cause not enough want it its a seperate issue?

I don't agree.

Yes. It's a seperate issue. But not because not enough want it. It's a seperate issue regardless of how many people want it. I meant that we aren't debating whether a man can marry a cat, we're debating same-sex marriage. If enough people wanted to marry their cats we'd be debating that instead. That's not the same.

It's a seperate issue. I'd like to hear someone explain in clear terms why letting a man marry a woman doesn't allow a man to marry his daughter, but somehow letting a man marry a man would then mean that a man can marry his son?

Owned by Remi #?

[Ron 10]

Quote

So Ron,

What exactly is wrong in your opinion with two loving male adults wishing to formally declare themselves a family unit?

Then they will want to adopt.

I think its wrong, and I don't think they should be allowed to adopt kids. And bring those kids up thinking that its normal.

I have no problem with what THEY want to do...however it will influence people who don't have the right to choose.

I don't have aproblem with a same sex couple having the same rights in regaurds to each other...But I don't think they should be allowed to adopt...

In nature those types of relationships in animals would not happen....It is not natural for two of the same sex to raise a child. It should not be allowed in humans.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

In nature those types of relationships in animals would not happen....It is not natural for two of the same sex to raise a child. It should not be allowed in humans.

Dude, you're gonna have to come with a MUCH better arguement than that if you're actually trying to convince anyone.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[dbattman 0]

Quote

Rick Santorum is the same asshat that wants to re-nitroduce laws against sodomy.

Hey, you're not doing it right unless your breaking at least one sodomy law.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Quote

So Ron,

What exactly is wrong in your opinion with two loving male adults wishing to formally declare themselves a family unit?

Then they will want to adopt.

I think its wrong, and I don't think they should be allowed to adopt kids. And bring those kids up thinking that its normal.

I have no problem with what THEY want to do...however it will influence people who don't have the right to choose.

I don't have aproblem with a same sex couple having the same rights in regaurds to each other...But I don't think they should be allowed to adopt...

In nature those types of relationships in animals would not happen....It is not natural for two of the same sex to raise a child. It should not be allowed in humans.

Totally mute point. Gay's don't have to adopt. Gays have kids now without legal recognition. Gays have kids now without adopting them. Legal civil unions would do nothing to change that.

Owned by Remi #?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Then they will want to adopt.

I think its wrong, and I don't think they should be allowed to adopt kids. And bring those kids up thinking that its normal.

Most states currently allow gay couples to be foster parents. I don't see what the difference is. If society says that they are good enough to look after abondoned kids, why aren't the good enough to legally adopt them?

Are you happier with children growing up thinking it is normal for daddy to beat up mommy when he come shome, once again drunker than a skunk.

Or, maybe you are happier knowing that kids think it is normal to be raised by a single parent as opposed to being part of a loving two parent household.

Quote

In nature those types of relationships in animals would not happen....It is not natural for two of the same sex to raise a child. It should not be allowed in humans.

And that is not quite right either. IIRC many monkey species share raising their children among all the females in the group. and homosexual sex is fairly common among those groups as well.

[craichead 0]

Quote

In nature those types of relationships in animals would not happen....It is not natural for two of the same sex to raise a child. It should not be allowed in humans.

Oh really?

Gramzay knew that Roy and Silo had paired off, because at breeding time, they did everything the "straight" penguins did: they built a nest, they defended it from others and engaged in what zookeepers euphemistically call "ecstatic display."

...

Back in the tank, Roy and Silo's behavior indicated that they really wanted a kid. Zookeepers gave them a dummy penguin egg, just to see if they'd actually incubate it. When they did, zookeepers gave them an actual egg, which Roy and Silo again incubated. When the baby chick was born, Roy and Silo cared for it, feeding it yummy regurgitated smelt and keeping it warm until it could survive on its own.

Years later, Roy and Silo are still going strong. And so are all their heterosexual penguin pals who share the tank with them. So that dispels one myth about gay marriage: Roy and Silo's commitment to each other has not destroyed the sanctity of the other penguin marriages. Gramzay said the penguin divorce rate remains the same as it was before Roy and Silo hooked up.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[labrys 0]

Quote

In nature those types of relationships in animals would not happen....It is not natural for two of the same sex to raise a child. It should not be allowed in humans.

So it should also be okay for humans to kill their children if they feel the need? It happens with animals in nature. It must be natural.

Owned by Remi #?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I don't have aproblem with a same sex couple having the same rights in regaurds to each other...But I don't think they should be allowed to adopt...

They already are allowed to. What does a civil union have to do with it?

[Rebecca 0]

Awww!!! That is SO sweet.

And a very effective rebuttal. 'Course gay union opposition often plays both sides of that coin (Animals don't do it, so it's not natural/ Animals do it, so it's bestial)

Still, great article.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

In nature those types of relationships in animals would not happen....It is not natural for two of the same sex to raise a child. It should not be allowed in humans.

In nature the weak die off and dont survive. In nature most young animals do not survive, yet we as a race dont allow nature to take its course. Do you think a premi chimp would survive or any premi animal. What's natural about a kid growing up in an abusive home with abusive hetero or gay parents. If a couple ANY couple, interacial, intercultural, gay, straight can provide a loving home for a kid so be it. What people perceive as "normal" changes. In the 50s a single parent was not "normal", 50 years later it is normal to be raised by a single mom or dad. Are the kids any different?

[Keith 0]

If you're referring to civil unions for all, I'm all for it. If you're referring to civil unions for gays and marriages for straights, I think it's a place to start but it's not the answer. I don't agree with separate but equal. We all know that doesn't work.

If we really want to defend marriage, we should ban divorce, separation and infidelity. You (not you Chris, society in general) want a divorce or to have sex with the cutie next door? Fine, but you'll spend 5 to life in prison thinking about what a great idea it was. That's defending marriage.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Keith 0]

Quote

You have two people that want to be married. They are both male and right now they are not allowed. They want the rights to the same treatment as a hetero couple.

You have two people, they are brother and sister. They want to have kids together and be husband and wife. Again it is not allowed.

(bold added by Keith for emphasis)

Uh, Ron, using a sister and brother wanting to have kids together to make a point against two men getting married is not a very good one. Last I checked, the only babies I can have with another man are jelly babies. Adoption aside, because we're not talking brother and sister adoption, we're talking conception.

edited 'cause I screwed up the "bold" thing.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[billvon 3,111]

>So it should also be okay for humans to kill their children if they feel
> the need? It happens with animals in nature. It must be natural.

It IS natural; killing is quite common in animals. However, we have enough of a brain to realize that we should aspire to higher standards than those of a dung beetle. Those standards are explained in the documents this country was founded upon. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even if our animal natures drive us to kill others. This country was founded upon freedom, the freedom to live our lives as we see fit as long as we do not impact other's right to live their lives as THEY see fit. That includes doing whatever we want (within the law, of course) loving whoever we want and marrying whoever we want. To hope that the US government might play a part in deciding who we can love, and who we can commit our lives to, is to pray for a theocracy to remove the difficult moral choices from our lives. It is not the hope of anyone who desires the sort of freedom our founding fathers envisioned.

There are plenty of societies throughout the world where homosexuality is banned or restricted, where women are forced to remain veiled, where religious worship is mandated, where boys have better opportunities than girls - all based on a religious bias present in their form of government. Why do we seek to emulate them?

[labrys 0]

Quote

It IS natural; killing is quite common in animals.

I said this as a rebuttal to Ron's claim that homosexuality was unnatural because animals don't do it. While his statement is wrong, I ignored that and was only meaning to point out that we don't behave the same way animals do. Maybe I didn't word it well. Sure. it's natural for animals to kill and we take great pride in rising about that instinct as human beings.

Someone else already said it in an earlier post. You can't have it both ways. You can't take pride in the fact that you rise above animal instinct as a human and distinguish yourself and your morality through religion and the avoidance of temptation (instinct), and then say that something is unnatural because animals don't do it. Even if you're wrong about what animals can and will do.

Edited to add. This is the question I should have asked:

Ron, If gay couples shouldn't raise kids because same-sex animal couples don't raise kids (I don't agree with that, but never mind), Is it alright with you for different-sex parents to kill their children if they feel the need because animals do?

Owned by Remi #?