I am more disturbed

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
I too was saddened and discouraged by this. As Gary Adams said, the people have spoken and we now have no choice but to follow the law until we can change it.

It is interesting to me, however, that as much as the supporters are touting "the people spoke, quit whining", not one of them, with the exception of Tony, actually said why they support such a ban. Are they afraid to just come out and say "A couple consisting of two gay men is evil and doesn't deserve the same priviledges (note I do not use the word rights) as a hetro couple"?

And really, Tony, if I want to marry my car, what's it to you? There are dozens, hundreds even, of hetro couples out there today whom I look at and say "What were they thinking???" But it's none of my business, and neither does it affect me. So I move on down the road.

edited for abysmal grammar...

Mal, I'm sorry if my words didn't convey my thoughts clearly.

I'm afraid if we start redefining marriage to allow same sex, that will start the trend, next will come group marriages, then animals (whether for serious, humorous or 'sexual' reasons, then cars, then what?). I personally like the definition of marriage exactly the way it is, and don't want to risk the chance. I did not mean to compare a same-sex couple to an individual marrying thier car, and I'm sorry if I did. I fully support Civil Unions, but don't feel a need to change the current definition of marriage.

And like many of the posters here, I would have been disappointed if the vote went the other way, and I too would work long and hard for political change.

Sometimes, nice, rational people have different views, and all the talking in the world won't change either viewpoint.

I respect your rights and freedoms, and I have heard many of these arguments many times over, and I (personall) choose not to support the change in the definition of marriage.

I hope this clarifies my point.

-Tony

Also edited for abysmal grammar...

 

[txSleepingBeauty]

Originally posted by PolyConFan
If the same candidate won ONLY the following 11 states, those 11 states would tell us who our next president would be. So, yes...11 states can speak for America:
California 55
Florida 27
Georgia 15
Illinois 21
Michigan 17
New Jerse 15
New York 31
North Carolina 15
Ohio 20
Pennsylvania 21
Texas 34

Total: 280

ok, this has nothing to do with this topic (which I am saddened by, I have no right to deny anyone the priveldge of marrying someone over the age of 18. It's your business who you want to marry, not mine. And life partners should enjoy all the legal/financial benefits of hetero spouses)

that being said this qoute is the EXACT reason why the electoral college process needs to be changed.

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by ripleysmom
I find it extraordinary that it always the "haves" who look at the "have nots" and tell them that they should be happy to be allowed to exist next to them.

Tony, so tell me....is your marriage only about "feel good fuzzies"?

Yes.

How about yours?

-Tony

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by luvsTink
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here....surely you are not equating a gay/lesbian person to a car, or dog, or horse...are you???

Anne

Please read the entire original post. Thank you.

 

[DemonLlama]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
They think its a "threat" to the sanctity of marriage.

See this little article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/107/41.0.html


edit: Worth reading for the laugh factor alone.

Are you taking issue with the reasoning in this article, the evidence used as support, or something else? I am just curious.

 

[PolyConFan]

Originally posted by txSleepingBeauty
ok, this has nothing to do with this topic (which I am saddened by, I have no right to deny anyone the priveldge of marrying someone over the age of 18. It's your business who you want to marry, not mine. And life partners should enjoy all the legal/financial benefits of hetero spouses)

that being said this qoute is the EXACT reason why the electoral college process needs to be changed.

If not for the electoral college, the states with the large metropolitan areas (AREAS THAT DO NOT REFLECT THE MAINSTREAM VALEUS OF AMERICA) will have all of the say, THANK GOD for the electoral college. The people who make America work (those in flyover country) have a voice.

 

[CookieGVB]

I'm still confused why people in a traditional hetero marriage would feel threatened by a same-sex marriage.

It also sounds to me as if the wording on the amendment was deliberately misleading.

I guess we're just not as forward-thinking in this country as we try to portray. That's just sad.

 

[MikeB63]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Do you believe a person in a long standing gay relationship, who has built a home, built a business, took care of their partner for many years, shared life experiences, etc. should be barred from their partner's hospital bed, have half their home and business sold out from under them, have their written will challenged and discarded in court, lose all parental rights to a child they may've loved and raised, etc?

Yes or no.

That's it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think you'll find any answers here.
____________________________________________________

I'll give my answer and risk the wrath of those who think differently. IMO homosexuality is morally wrong and not natural. If it were natural, men and women would not be anatomically different and be able to reproduce without the opposite sex. I do not buy into the "born that way" argument/hypothesis. I believe some men are born with feminine traits and some women are born with masculine traits, but I don't believe they're born gay. That being said, making gay marriage legal adds legitamacy to the homosexual lifestyle. It makes it acceptable. How does this affect me? It affects me because as this becomes an accepted norm, our/my children and their children (if they have them) may see this as an acceptable lifestyle, equal with what is natural and moral and it will become more widespread. To me the equal treatment of homosexual lifestyle with heterosexual lifestyle is just another sign of the decrease in morality in society. Do I think homosexuals should be discriminated against? No, tolerance is one thing, acceptance is another. Their are other ways that the issues raised above ( insurance, property rights) can be dealt with legally. Treat the problem not the symptom. I'm sure I have offended quite a few people. I'm sorry, that was not my intent. This is how I feel and someone asked for an answer.

P.S. I'm not an evangelical either.

 

[raidermatt]

I guess we're just not as forward-thinking in this country as we try to portray. That's just sad.

I'm honestly torn on the issue, and didn't have to vote on it here in CA.

But as many others have stated, statements like this are what irritates people. The entire "don't agree with me = backward thinking" idea.

Its not the sole domain of the left, by any stretch, but part of the "forward thinking" left is supposed to include considering the views of all important, and not being dismissive of those who disagree.

But for whatever reason, conservative views on social issues have been increasingly labeled as backward by the left. That does two things... 1, prohibits any kind of rational discussion, and 2, creates a backlash.

Now, again, I'm not saying the right doesn't have their problems with the way they communicate their disagreements, but since the topic is the response to propositions that didn't go the way of the left, that's whats being addressed.

If nothing else, it appears the "labeling as backward" strategy isn't working, so it might be time to re-evaluate.

 

[CookieGVB]

Did you ever read Animal Farm?

The quote "We are all equal...some of us are more equal than others" comes to mind these days.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Christine
We'll be in burkas in no time at all.

Get your order in now to avoid the Christmas rush.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Im afraid its a bit more complicated than that my friend.
Research the topic, as the genetic link is being researched still and has not been proven to be wrong.

It's not been proven, period. That's the point. That's like saying the world was flat until someone proved it otherwise.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ripleysmom
"Some of the amendments that were passed also included wording prohibiting even a civil union which means that there will be no legal recognition for homosexuals. I'm glad you're happy but I am entitled to feel sad for a discriminated class of people.

I'm against the prohibition of civil unions. But, if the states vote that way, nothing I can do.

 

[txSleepingBeauty]

Originally posted by MikeB63
quote:
IMO homosexuality is morally wrong and not natural.

I'm curious ( and this isn't bashing you ahve every right to your opinionand I honestly want to know your reasoning) but if you don't think homosexuality is natural ,then do you think that it is a choice? And if you believe that, why do you think anyone would choose to be so differnet from normal society and to be essentially an "outcast" for lack of a better word. Why would someone choose to engage in something that is discrimated against? And if you choose to be gay, then do you think you choose to be straight?

Again, no bashing implied, I'm honestly curious. I live in a very liberal household that believes that this is somehow genetcially preprogramed, but I'm trying to understand other people's views on this.

 

[dmadman43]

In my opinion saying a gay couple can't marry is no different than saying a black person can't marry a white person.

It is completely different. Blacks were not being allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex of a different race. Clearly preventing them from adhering to the marriage laws. Again, no matter how hard Micheal Jackson tries, you cannot change your race. So, this was CLEARLY a discrimination issue. There is ample evidence that some can change their sexual preference, and marriage laws do not address love, attraction, or sexual preference. Thus, no discrimination. Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want, just like anyone else.

 

[mikeymars]

The gay agenda is real, and not a secret document.

It was first published in a 1985 article by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the gay magazine "Christopher Street." There was no initial enthusiasm for this agenda in the gay community. In fact, some gays considered the proposed tactics fraudulent and demeaning. But a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy galvanized many activists.

Subsequently, in February, 1988, a “war conference” of 175 leading gay activists representing organizations from every part of the United States convened in Warrenton, Va. The purpose of the conference, according to Kirk and Madsen in their 1989 book "After the Ball," was to establish an agenda for the gay movement.

The agenda that resulted as described by Kirk and Madsen is radical indeed. Among other things, it advocates junking the centuries’ old definitions of marriage and family and returning to an ancient Greek model of homosexual relationships between young boys and older men.

Central to the agenda is a “propaganda campaign” that portrays gays as victims, attacks all opponents of their agenda as latent homosexuals, and utilizes an advertising campaign of lies. Kirk and Madsen defend this ad campaign, saying “it makes no difference that the ads are lies: not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones; not to bigots, because the ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not.”

To the activists who established the gay agenda in the 1980s, anyone who opposed them was a bigot and a “homophobe.” All critics must be “jammed” through a psychological linking technique used with success in anti-drinking and anti-smoking ad campaigns.

If the gay agenda were confined to a positive public relations campaign to improve the image of homosexuals, there would not be so much opposition to it. But the agenda is as hateful as the attitudes of the alleged bigots that the activists set out to confront.

Those who seek to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, meaning the union of a man and a woman, are not bigots. Neither are they all latent homosexuals, as Kirk and Madsen claim.

Unfortunately, the activists’ strategy has worked — after a fashion. Movies and television routinely portray the "gay' lifestyle positively. Reporters now frequently refer to policies that gays oppose as “gay-bashing.” Yet, the in-your-face tactics of these activists, especially the outing of legislative staffers, turn many off.

Gay activists have now launched a campaign to dig into the personal lives of all legislators who supported Virginia’s 2004 law banning civil unions. They are looking for any rumor or suggestion of questionable private conduct so that these despised lawmakers can be outed — whether the allegations involve homosexual conduct or other behavior that might prove embarrassing.

The irony is apparently lost on these radicals that the right to be left alone — the centerpiece of their campaign — no longer extends to those who disagree with the gay agenda. And they have abandoned any pretense of confining their outing tactics to public officials who remain closet homosexuals while publicly opposing the gay agenda. They will slime any opponent with whatever sleaze is at hand.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Let's cut through the bull****. This is what's at stake with the gay marriage amendments.

1) Do you believe a person in a long standing gay relationship, who has built a home, built a business, took care of their partner for many years, shared life experiences, etc. should be barred from their partner's hospital bed, have half their home and business sold out from under them, have their written will challenged and discarded in court, lose all parental rights to a child they may've loved and raised, etc?

Yes or no.

That's it.

No. And it can be solved with civil unions. I'm all for civil unions. And I don't think they should have to pay a lawyer to have one drawn up.

MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT

 

[supergoof]

My two cents,

1 Corinthians chapter 6 vs. 9&10

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That's good enough for me. Enjoy your debate.

 

[tonyswife]

How very sad that people think it is supposed to be "majority rules, get over it" The constitution was created to protect individuals from mob rule. A pure democracy is a nightmare and I'm glad we don't live in one, but it seems like we are slipping ever closer to one with every single election.

In regards to gay marriage...well marriage should not be in the realm of the government, federal, state or local, at all. It is a primarily religious institution that we have made into a quasi-contractual relationship. People who wish to marry in a church or whatever should do so. If a couple wishes to make legal arrangements about inheritance, custody, etc.. they should have to hire a lawyer and hammer out the details themselves.

Sad, sad, sad. Not because of what it says about how people feel about homosexuals, but because of how it shows that people are willing to use the force of government to impose their morals on the rest of the population.

 

[CheshireVal]

Originally posted by supergoof
My two cents,

1 Corinthians chapter 6 vs. 9&10

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That's good enough for me. Enjoy your debate.

And what exactly does that have to do with whether gays should be allowed to be married?

If I'm following your reasoning, drunks, adulterers (which technically means THINKING about it), greedy people and cheaters shouldn't get married.