Gays

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by eric
You really believe we progressed in the right direction? How old are you ? I am close to 40 and I can remember a time when parents did not have half the worries of today. A time when people were decent, television was informative, and schools were a place to learn. Yes let us continue on this path we are on. I just thank God I have the resources that I and my future children will always be able to isolate our family from these negative influences. It is not people like me who will suffer high crime rates, middle of the road medical care, and poor schools. So you are hurting the very people you so trying to cater to !

we have progressed in terms of minority rights, gay rights, women's rights etc. Who am i trying to cater to, the criminals? People are still decent.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Own up to some of your own words if you have any balls.

once again, those weren't my words. just found it funny.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by deciophobic
once again, those weren't my words. just found it funny.

Only funny, so you do not support the statement?

 

[eric]

we have progressed in terms of minority rights, gay rights, women's rights etc. Who am i trying to cater to, the criminals? People are still decent

And look what has happened as a side effect to society. I am not saying that minority rights are a bad thing, or the cause of our decline. It was the way they came into being combined with the liberal concept that no one is responsible for their actions anymore.

 

[Johnney]

so you jsut throwing friviolous shit out to try to make yourself look intelligent?

 

[eric]

Once again, I could care less if you are gay, live and let live, just stop pushing your agenda on the masses. I feel the same way with heterosexual people, hey if you like to dress like tarzan and swing on a vine during sex, go for it, just don't tell me about it, or broadcast it in public.

 

[Johnney]

hey if you like to dress like tarzan and swing on a vine during sex, go for it

now <i>that</i> sounds fun....
not only am i going to tell you about it im going to video tape it and send it to you
lol

 

[eric]

Not me, send it to Jim, he will add it to his collection !!

 

[Johnney]

 

[Moi]

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.


In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.


After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.


On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.


The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all

states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.


Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.


For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.


Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.


America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.


In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.


Thank you very much.

I don't know if it'll be the same with an amendment, but the defense of marriage act passed with 85% vote under a Democrat regime. I hope that the Republican control can get it done.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
You CHOOSE whether or not to accept the incoming penis into your mouth.

Doesn't that POV also define oral sex between heterosexuals as deviant behavior?

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by eric
Well then here is my question; why not live your life like straight people do ? Go about your business and leave your sex life at home, why is it necessary to flaunt and push this demented lifestyle on the masses. All one has to do is to look at the gay parades ! Let me tell you it does not help their cause in any way, in fact it angers people and makes them reject homosexuality even more !!!

That is how most gays and lesbians behave. There is a small minority of exhibitionists who act out in public.

So do Madonna, Janet Jackson and Britney Spears. Should we condemn all heterosexual women because of a few sluts?

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by eric
Let us not forget the overwhelming majorities in the house and senate for the defense of marriage act !

Most constitutional professors concur that a constitutional amendment will pass congress by the required two thirds. The question comes becomes will enough states ratify the amendment either by legislative bodies or conventions, being 38 states would be required. The general feeling is yes !

A perfect case study of the Tyrrany of the Majority, as described by Tocqueville.

200 years ago, the majority probably would have been in favor of slavery. Doesn't make it right.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Doesn't that POV also define oral sex between heterosexuals as deviant behavior?

What about anal sex between heterosexuals?

I don't know if it'll be the same with an amendment, but the defense of marriage act passed with 85% vote under a Democrat regime.

I didn't know that. Since they seem to cover every aspect of everything when they run a story in the ground, I'm surprised that hasn't been brought up.

 

[Avatar4321]

WW Said: "I wonder how you would react if your child were gay."

Show him your profile pic, that would make him straight in no time

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Doesn't that POV also define oral sex between heterosexuals as deviant behavior?

Whether someone labels it as that or not doesn't matter, it's still their choice.

 

[Avatar4321]

Decio said: "I'm serious, how is it a choice?"

My question is how is it not a choice? Since when is anyone forced to do something they dont choose to do? That would be like saying smoking, drinking and drugs arent a choice either. Yeah someone might be addicted to them but you can choose to stop too.

No one forces these people to engage in sexual activities with the same sex. they choose to. To argue that sexual preference is something you are born with is illogical. (especially considering the word preference connotates choice). If homosexuality was genetic, it would be eliminated from the human gene pool within a generation or two because the genes that survive are the ones that get passed to the next generation. Kinda hard to do that with two men or two women.

Besides, Id still like to be told why if we to concede it was natural, that it somehow makes it good. Hatred, Intolerance, and violence are all natural too. That doesnt mean they are good.

Being natural also doesnt explain why you no longer have a choice. Its natural to be attracted to the opposite gender. That doesnt mean we have no choice and that we have to engage in relations with them. We choose to (and it is a very good choice in certain circumstances).

This is an important political issue. Not only because marriage is vital for the survival of civilization but becausethe way these activists are trying to force society to legitimize their actions is by circumventing the Constitutional and Legislative system of government. Here we are, a majority who oppose this, who are being force my a very small minority of judges and civil servants who have sworn to uphold our constitution and political system but do the exact opposite. It should be the activists who are trying to change society through the legislative bodies and the Constitutional process and not the people trying to preserve our way of life to stop people from circumventing the law! People should be outraged at this.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
A perfect case study of the Tyrrany of the Majority, as described by Tocqueville.

200 years ago, the majority probably would have been in favor of slavery. Doesn't make it right.

1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 5 years ago. The majority would always have voted against gay marriage. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
This is an important political issue. Not only because marriage is vital for the survival of civilization but becausethe way these activists are trying to force society to legitimize their actions is by circumventing the Constitutional and Legislative system of government. Here we are, a majority who oppose this, who are being force my a very small minority of judges and civil servants who have sworn to uphold our constitution and political system but do the exact opposite. It should be the activists who are trying to change society through the legislative bodies and the Constitutional process and not the people trying to preserve our way of life to stop people from circumventing the law! People should be outraged at this.

Well said!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 5 years ago. The majority would always have voted against gay marriage. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't think so. In 1800 you could say the same thing about slavery. Ethics and morality change even in a governing context, like it or loathe it. I wouldn't be surprised that by the next generation opinions will change as I believe western civilization always moves towards social liberalization. I don't believe the cases are truly that far of in an ethical evolution context.