What with all this talk of homosexuality

[Dr Grump]

R-i-i-i-ght. It damned sure IS about what "We, the People" want. This isn't the Soviet Union. If Western Society as a whole and its basic laws and morals reflect Judeo-Chrtistianity, you can't just dismiss them with a declaration and wave of the hand.

As long as it has no impact on your life all you are doing is pushing YOUR agenda on people due to your own bigotry...

 

[Hobbit]

The United States is a republic not a democracy. The reason it is a republic is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Do you know how many times conservatives have given me that argument. Oh, the irony that it is now twisted the other way....

A government only rules at the consent of the governed, and despite the fact that the minority does indeed need to be protected from tyranny by the majority, that does not mean that a minority can project tyranny on the majority. That would just be stupid. In fact, it would be almost as stupid as a democratically elected government going directly against the will of the people and claim it was for our own good.

 

[Dr Grump]

A government only rules at the consent of the governed, and despite the fact that the minority does indeed need to be protected from tyranny by the majority, that does not mean that a minority can project tyranny on the majority. That would just be stupid. In fact, it would be almost as stupid as a democratically elected government going directly against the will of the people and claim it was for our own good.

I concur. I don't see how gay people wanting the same rights as you as being a tyranny. Gay people are not wanting the same rights for YOUR good, hell it is not for any type of good, it's called being fair...

 

[Stephanie]

I concur. I don't see how gay people wanting the same rights as you as being a tyranny. Gay people are not wanting the same rights for YOUR good, hell it is not for any type of good, it's called being fair...

They already HAVE all the rights as everone has......
4% of a population asking too have special rights made just for them... How is that fair? When a majority of people believe that behavior is wrong..
The majority is being fair in saying let them do as they wish, but they've put the kibosh on this last step of them asking for a special right for marriage...
Fair is fair...... Darn-it

 

[MissileMan]

First off logic, who are you to define what President Bush means by the word sanctity?

Is there a definition for sanctity that doesn't have anything to do with holiness or sacred?

 

[sitarro]

Is there a definition for sanctity that doesn't have anything to do with holiness or sacred?

Did you not get the jist of the post? I said that words have no meaning in todays world. Bad used to mean lousy, awful, etc. until language devolved into ebonics by losers in this country, now it can mean the opposite. A well known asshole that used to be President of our country pretended to not get the definition of the word "is" while testifying in front of the Grand Jury, I guess he was more familiar with the ebonic definition. The practitioners of ebonics change the meaning of words almost daily to suit whatever shit they have got themselves into or just shear laziness .

So I guess you would have to ask the current President what he meant by sanctity. Then again, since the whole idea of marriage was originally one of the 7 Sacraments of the Catholic Church, he may have been refering to how sacred marriage is suppose to be.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The conservatives, though, to sway the issue from religion, rely on tradition as you just cited. But tradition doesn't make something right. Slavery was a tradition brought from overseas. Female inferiority was a tradition carried into the U.S. Both were etched into the fabric of western society for eons and eons. But despite them being traditional values, we've changed them.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, tradition is not a valid supporting argument.

And if it wasn't a religious issue for the right wing, then why does president Bush keep telling us that we need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage?" "Sanctity" refers to something that is holy, therefore his argument is based on religion.

No one's asking the church to wed gays, it's just a matter of legality and recognition by the STATE, not God.

Are you saying that, like slavery and womens suffrage, the tradition of marriage is not right?

Tradition can go a long way to support an argument--although that is not the only argument us conservatives are using. What you liberals are proposing is to destroy is a basic foundation of every society--the tradition of marriage as it has existed for eons. You liberals want to tear apart the traditional fabric of our society and create a totally new cloth...the color of pink now, but ultimately red.

Communism wants to replace God and the family unit with the STATE (as you so conveniently pointed out). You may not even realize it yourself, but this is where the radical Left wishes us to take us. So they are pushing goofy arguments about "gay rights" to marry and other multicultural gobblygook in order to balkanize and weaken our country so they can step in and run things. Sorry, but unlike the Eurotrash who have fallen for hedonism and relativism, we Americans are not buying it.

 

[Dr Grump]

They already HAVE all the rights as everone has......
4% of a population asking too have special rights made just for them... How is that fair? When a majority of people believe that behavior is wrong..
The majority is being fair in saying let them do as they wish, but they've put the kibosh on this last step of them asking for a special right for marriage...
Fair is fair...... Darn-it

No they don't. They cannot marry. That 4% is only asking what the rest can do. And to say they can marry the opposite sex is a vacuous argument because they are not attracted to the opposite sex. As I said, anything else is just bigotry, plain and simple. And until they have a direct effect on your life I'll call it as I see it.:arabia:

 

[MissileMan]

Did you not get the jist of the post? I said that words have no meaning in todays world. Bad used to mean lousy, awful, etc. until language devolved into ebonics by losers in this country, now it can mean the opposite. A well known asshole that used to be President of our country pretended to not get the definition of the word "is" while testifying in front of the Grand Jury, I guess he was more familiar with the ebonic definition. The practitioners of ebonics change the meaning of words almost daily to suit whatever shit they have got themselves into or just shear laziness .

So I guess you would have to ask the current President what he meant by sanctity. Then again, since the whole idea of marriage was originally one of the 7 Sacraments of the Catholic Church, he may have been refering to how sacred marriage is suppose to be.

You know perfectly well that when Pres, Bush uses the term "sanctity of marriage" that he's talking about the holiness of marriage. You know..."what God has joined together". It's no big deal, but your quick trigger of denial is a curiousity. A lot of the arguments put forth on this board are formed strictly from a religious perspective. I disagree with a lot of them, argue against a lot of them, but respect the sincerity of most of them. Trying to disavow the religiousness of a religious argument makes a person appear insincere and incredible.

 

[mattskramer]

ScreamingEagle:

I think that you were the one that agrued the following point. If so, then I think that you are one of the few people who really take the time and effort to discuss the issue clearly and logically with me. After I read, thought about, and tried to fully understand your point, I doubt that I ever got around to asking a particular follow-up question. I have a simple question and would appreciate a simple and clear explanation.

I argued that people could adopt. I argued that people could call on surrogate mothers or sperm banks (gays and straights can do this). I argued that you don’t have to be married to have a kid and that you don’t have to have a kid to be married. I argued that we allow people to do things that are not always in the best interest to them or in the best health of the nation. I argued that some heterosexual couples couldn’t have kids. I argued that some couples capable of having a kid choose to be childless. Still, as I understand it, you maintain that since gay couples, by the very biological fact that 2 men by themselves or 2 women by themselves could never produce a baby, on that fact alone, marriage for such couples should not be allowed.

When there are so few actual gay people and when so few of them would actually get married, I don’t consider gay marriage to be such a significant issue to the well being of American society – particularly when there are so many more significant factors. Why do you consider the fact gay couples can’t produce a baby to be such an important reason for denying marriage to gays?

 

[sitarro]

You know perfectly well that when Pres, Bush uses the term "sanctity of marriage" that he's talking about the holiness of marriage. You know..."what God has joined together". It's no big deal, but your quick trigger of denial is a curiousity. A lot of the arguments put forth on this board are formed strictly from a religious perspective. I disagree with a lot of them, argue against a lot of them, but respect the sincerity of most of them. Trying to disavow the religiousness of a religious argument makes a person appear insincere and incredible.

Really...... I guess it is because I was being insincere. I was basically doing the same crap so many others do when they pretend they don't understand. It is done regularly on this board, mostly by ones who would identify with the left side of the political spectrum. Their God, Bill Clinton, is an expert at it. A technique used to frustrate and piss off others that know that these practitioners of this bullshit do know better. It is funny how the newly enlightened among us have decided to ignore hundreds of years of tradition and definitions to play a silly game to get what they think they want. The fact is this country was formed on a basis of Christianity and the overwhelming population is some variation of those beliefs, it is not a negative thing by any stretch of the imagination and most don't want it to change. Marriage has been through a lot of problems over the last few years attacked by the changes society has gone through. Yet it has remained a strong institution that means a great deal to many people(the pressures put on it as well as relationships are many).

The old adage "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" is very true. I had an Architecture instructor in college that was a bit strange, nobody could define what it was but we all felt it. He was married to a beautiful woman, had tenure, drove a small British sportscar and was probably the most knowledgeable of all of the design instructors. One summer he went away and had surgery to attempt to be a woman. She was an absent minded, eccentric, poorely made up, tastelessly overdressed "woman" with no hips, who stayed friends with the exwife but moved in to a house full of homosexuals....they lived next door to my girlfriend. After going out with numerous guys she found that she wasn't attracted to them, she started dating lesbians. A huge change of life to only go back to what he was doing before without the correct equipment.......she left town shortly after.

Now we are being told that we have to not only accept a behavior that most of us find abhorrent, we are being demanded to sanction it with an institution traditionally created for males and females. How soon would we hear about the regrets of getting what they think they want? There is a huge difference between divorce and a break up of a relationship, pressures of legal marriage is a lot different from a regular dating relationship even if the couple lives together. These pressures along with the overfocus on sexuality that is prevalent in the homosexual community spells only disaster. Divorce lawyers will welcome it, they will get that much more rich but I would bet on a big jump in suicide and domestic violence than we already see.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

ScreamingEagle:

I think that you were the one that agrued the following point. If so, then I think that you are one of the few people who really take the time and effort to discuss the issue clearly and logically with me. After I read, thought about, and tried to fully understand your point, I doubt that I ever got around to asking a particular follow-up question. I have a simple question and would appreciate a simple and clear explanation.

I argued that people could adopt. I argued that people could call on surrogate mothers or sperm banks (gays and straights can do this). I argued that you don’t have to be married to have a kid and that you don’t have to have a kid to be married. I argued that we allow people to do things that are not always in the best interest to them or in the best health of the nation. I argued that some heterosexual couples couldn’t have kids. I argued that some couples capable of having a kid choose to be childless. Still, as I understand it, you maintain that since gay couples, by the very biological fact that 2 men by themselves or 2 women by themselves could never produce a baby, on that fact alone, marriage for such couples should not be allowed.

When there are so few actual gay people and when so few of them would actually get married, I don’t consider gay marriage to be such a significant issue to the well being of American society – particularly when there are so many more significant factors. Why do you consider the fact gay couples can’t produce a baby to be such an important reason for denying marriage to gays?

Thanks, I'll try. First of all I'm sure you agree that it is natural for babies to be created by one man and one woman. Thus biological relationships have always been the basis of the natural family unit. Gays have never had "natural" families. The natural family unit has been the basis of marriage. By allowing gay people to marry we would be changing the whole basis of the natural family unit from one of biological family relationships to one of contractual family relationships. This is a huge seismic shift, despite the argument that marriage has been considered a "contract" sanctioned by either religion or government. Marriage has always been centered on the biological family unit despite its contractual elements. If we allowed gay marriage, marriage would essentially change its basis from natural to un-natural or non-natural. Marriage would then not be focussed on the natural biological family but solely on a relationship between two unrelated people. It would be more comparable to a relationship between two companies. A merger is based solely on a contractual relationship, not a biological relationship. Who would be the losers of such a shift in perspective? The children, of course. Society would also lose as it would lose it "roots" in nature.

You are right that there are probably very few gay people who would actually get married and probably even fewer still who would adopt or have babies via sperm donors or birth mothers. All these methods are un-natural in basis. Same thing goes for straight parents but with one great difference. As a man and a woman they have the natural potential to be parents and thus fit the marrige profile. Gays do not have that natural potential. Despite the fact that either couple could adopt, etc., I don't see any great reason to change the entire nature of society for the wants of so few gays.

I'd like to also add that since Man started messing with Mother Nature in the baby department, the proverbial Pandora's Box has been opened and already we are realizing many of the un-natural problems we can create. I was just watching Law & Order last night which had a story where a woman saw a child (after losing her own artificially inseminated child burned to dust in a tanker/car accident) who looked just like hers and she wound up stalking the child and harassing the child's parents and creating general havoc to get "her"? child back. It turned out the child actually WAS hers biologically, an additional child of hers through implantation of one of her eggs into another woman who was the birth mother of the child. This happened because of an unscrupulous doctor at the artificial insemination center who used her good eggs to implant other women without her knowledge. Very confusing, but the bottom line is many people, espeically the child, were hurt as a result of such un-natural procedures. Such scientific procedures should be used for limited reasons and with extreme caution imo. Bottom line: we need to remain grounded in Mother Nature as much as possible or else Mankind will suffer.

 

[roomy]

Are you saying that, like slavery and womens suffrage, the tradition of marriage is not right?

Tradition can go a long way to support an argument--although that is not the only argument us conservatives are using. What you liberals are proposing is to destroy is a basic foundation of every society--the tradition of marriage as it has existed for eons. You liberals want to tear apart the traditional fabric of our society and create a totally new cloth...the color of pink now, but ultimately red.

Communism wants to replace God and the family unit with the STATE (as you so conveniently pointed out). You may not even realize it yourself, but this is where the radical Left wishes us to take us. So they are pushing goofy arguments about "gay rights" to marry and other multicultural gobblygook in order to balkanize and weaken our country so they can step in and run things. Sorry, but unlike the Eurotrash who have fallen for hedonism and relativism, we Americans are not buying it.

I am pleased I am English and not European otherwise I may have taken offense, nevertheless, I must point out that gays can now commit to a civil union, not marriage, what's in a name I hear you cry, the answer is, all and nothing, depending upon you pov.

 

[GotZoom]

If 4% of the population is homosexual, and we are considering granting them "special rights" by allowing gay marriages, then we need to be fair and grant the 8 - 10% (perhaps up to 30% depending on the study) of the population who enjoy beastiality and zoophilia the same "special rights."

 

[Dr Grump]

If 4% of the population is homosexual, and we are considering granting them "special rights" by allowing gay marriages, then we need to be fair and grant the 8 - 10% (perhaps up to 30% depending on the study) of the population who enjoy beastiality and zoophilia the same "special rights."

And these beasts are consenting human adults??

 

[GotZoom]

And these beasts are consenting human adults??

I would dare say that a lot of these animals act as if they like their human companions.

I know..I know..pretty stupid comparison...that was done purposely.

The point is, our society is in trouble when a very small percentage of the population can force their agenda on the very, very large percentage of the same population and succeed.

 

[sitarro]

right out of the headlines, got zoom's prediction has materialized!

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/02/060602155817.4608d3f6.html


Charmed woman marries cobra in India

Jun 02 1:43 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
A woman who fell in love with a snake has reportedly married the reptile at a traditional Hindu wedding celebrated by 2,000 guests in India's Orissa state.

Bimbala Das wore a silk saree for the ceremony Wednesday at Atala village near the Orissa state capital Bhubaneswar.



Priests chanted mantras to seal the union, but the snake failed to come out of a nearby ant hill where it lives, the Press Trust of India (PTI) said.

A brass replica snake stood in for the hesitant groom.

"Though snakes cannot speak nor understand, we communicate in a peculiar way," Das, 30, told the agency.

"Whenever I put milk near the ant hill where the cobra lives, it always comes out to drink.

"I always get to see it every time I go near the ant hill. It has never harmed me," she added.

Villagers welcomed the wedding in the belief it would bring good fortune and laid on a feast for the big day.

Snakes and particularly the King Cobra are venerated in India as religious symbols worn by Lord Shiva, the god of destruction.

Das, from a lower caste, converted to the animal-loving vegetarian Vaishnav sect whose local elders gave her permission to marry the cobra, the world's largest venomous snake that can grow up to five metres.

"I am happy," said her mother Dyuti Bhoi, who has two other daughters and two sons to marry off.

"Bimbala was ill," Bhoi told local OTV channel. "We had no money to treat her. Then she started offering milk to the snake ... she was cured. That made her fall in love."

Das has moved into a hut built close to the ant hill since the wedding.

Earlier this year, a tribal girl was married off to a dog on the outskirts of Bhubaneswar.

 

[Dr Grump]

I would dare say that a lot of these animals act as if they like their human companions.

I know..I know..pretty stupid comparison...that was done purposely.

The point is, our society is in trouble when a very small percentage of the population can force their agenda on the very, very large percentage of the same population and succeed.

You are in absolutely no trouble if gays marry. Nothing in society will change due to that specific action happening. Bet you anything you like...

 

[Bullypulpit]

Chimpy McPresident (a.k.a. Dubbyuh) will be giving a speech supporting a Constitutional amendment banning same-gender marriage. Bill Frist is speaking in support of an amendment banning the burning of the US flag. While they're at it, why don't they sponsor an amendment requiring couples to get married wrapped in the flag?

A desperate GOP is working to whip the lunatic fringe base into a homophobic, red, white and blue lather with issues which directly impact on...ummmm...nobody. This especially when they're getting killed on issues of national and world import such as the war in Iraq...the burgeoning national debt...stagnant wages...global warming...and the list goes on.

God forbid we should focus on something affecting us all. After all, we can't have these upity homosexuals turning us all into sex-starved homosexyuls and fornicators while they burn the flag, now can we.

Anyone who falls for that tired old GOP bullshit should really look into getting themselves sterilized. They're just dragging the rest of the gene pool down with them

 

[sitarro]

Chimpy McPresident (a.k.a. Dubbyuh) will be giving a speech supporting a Constitutional amendment banning same-gender marriage. Bill Frist is speaking in support of an amendment banning the burning of the US flag. While they're at it, why don't they sponsor an amendment requiring couples to get married wrapped in the flag?

A desperate GOP is working to whip the lunatic fringe base into a homophobic, red, white and blue lather with issues which directly impact on...ummmm...nobody. This especially when they're getting killed on issues of national and world import such as the war in Iraq...the burgeoning national debt...stagnant wages...global warming...and the list goes on.

God forbid we should focus on something affecting us all. After all, we can't have these upity homosexuals turning us all into sex-starved homosexyuls and fornicators while they burn the flag, now can we.

Anyone who falls for that tired old GOP bullshit should really look into getting themselves sterilized. They're just dragging the rest of the gene pool down with them

Was it agent orange that did this to you Bully?