The Personal Effects

[DonnyMost]

You know, for all the piss n' vinegar I've seen people put into campaigns, I've never seen anyone cry before.

Today a friend of mine, a long time, childhood friend, broke down in tears because of the results of this election.

She is a lesbian, and currently in a long-standing relationship.

She has taken the news of the 11 new gay-union bannings and the swings in the house and senate very hard, she feels like it is personal, and that America hates her, and her kind.

This is a kind of thing I never want to see again, and I think it speaks loudly to the amount of cooperation that is going to be needed to even attempt to pull this nation back together.


For all the claims on both sides that this is the most important election in their lifetime, and that their life is going to change and blah blah blah.. I really don't think they understand what it truly means to have their lives dictated to them.

Sorry guys, I just had to get this off my chest.

[JayZ750]

Donny -

I don't want to put words in other people's mouths, but it seems to be pretty clear that Americans do view your friend as something very very different and something "beneath" them. I don't think I'm part of that camp and you can argue whether or not the results of the vote, especially in regards to the gay marriage vote, really does translate into Americans thinking less of gays, but it seems pretty straightforward.

[giddyup]

Does anybody have the actual language of the proposed amendment?
If so, post it here please. Thanks!

[Oski2005]

I feel bad for your friend and angry that in 2004, this is still an issue. I'll never buy any reasoning behind the vote to ban gay marriage other than hatred or bigotry. If it is a religious reason, go ahead and believe that and don't let your churches be used for it, but there's no reason why the religious aspect should have any say in the government view on it. The whole "defense of marriage" tripe is bull sh*t and everybody knows it.

[rockbox]

Originally posted by Oski2005
I feel bad for your friend and angry that in 2004, this is still an issue. I'll never buy any reasoning behind the vote to ban gay marriage other than hatred or bigotry. If it is a religious reason, go ahead and believe that and don't let your churches be used for it, but there's no reason why the religious aspect should have any say in the government view on it. The whole "defense of marriage" tripe is bull sh*t and everybody knows it.

But its ok to discrimminate if there is a line in the bible that says its bad.

[FranchiseBlade]

I agree with what others have said. Sadly people in America are scared of homosexuality. The issue shouldn't be one of great importance, but anytime a large segment starts discriminating against a minority it becomes important.

I think one sad thing from the results of the election is that it shows that throwing up a divisive, wedge issue into a campaign works. It's sad that in order to win Bush inserted this into the campaign.

I would hope that people learned from history. If I was from a denomination of a church that was on wrong side in desegregation issues, I would want to be sure my church was at the forefront of tolerance, and acceptance. I would hate to be one of these branches of churches that always has to be dragged into enlightenment. But it happened with racial discrimination and it's happening now with homosexual marriages.

I wish people would understand that they are welcome to their religion, but that it's wrong to legislate their religious beliefs on others.

Sadly because much of America is uncomfortable with gay marriages, these kinds of things happened.

Maybe the Democrats need a really good divisive issue, that shows how different some people are, and how the Democratic side is going to do something to keep that segment of the population down.

[DaDakota]

It is a democracy, and people have a right to their own opinions, we have to realize that we are not going to agree with the populas on everything.

Console your friend, she can still be a good partner, just can't be married to her in those states.

Marriage is a legal contract anyway, they should just eliminate it all together, people should be able to partner with whomever, but not expect benefits, let the employers decide if they want to cover heterosexual marriages, or same sex partnerships, or even families.

Leave it up to the companies to decide what benefits to provide, don't legislate it.

DD

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by DaDakota
It is a democracy, and people have a right to their own opinions, we have to realize that we are not going to agree with the populas on everything.

Console your friend, she can still be a good partner, just can't be married to her in those states.

Marriage is a legal contract anyway, they should just eliminate it all together, people should be able to partner with whomever, but not expect benefits, let the employers decide if they want to cover heterosexual marriages, or same sex partnerships, or even families.

Leave it up to the companies to decide what benefits to provide, don't legislate it.

DD

I don't agree with, but understand all of this post except the last sentence? Leaving it to companies is wrong. When we left it to companies who to hire, they always chose white males at one point. We then realized something was wrong with that. Now letting them hire people but only give benefits to the 'right kinds' of employees is as wrong as it gets. If they are going to give the benefits to employees then give it to all of them, and give them equal benefits, regardless of the person's domestic situation.

[ima_drummer2k]

Well, count me in as a conservative who couldn't give a sweet crap about anyone's sexual orientation. I have had many friends (I know everyone says that, but I'm serious) who are gay. I mean, I was a music major in college. ;)

I don't agree with Bush's stance on gay marriages or stem cell research for that matter. But other issues took presidence over these issues for me this time.

[DaDakota]

Blade,

I think you missed my point.

I mean take marriage completely out of the legal system, make it a purely contractual union betwen any 2 people.

Let companies decide whether or not they are going to cover patners in insurance, if not the employee can pay to have their partner covered, regardless of gender.

DD

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Blade,

I think you missed my point.

I mean take marriage completely out of the legal system, make it a purely contractual union betwen any 2 people.

Let companies decide whether or not they are going to cover patners in insurance, if not the employee can pay to have their partner covered, regardless of gender.

DD

I understood your point about taking marriage out of the system. It was the other part that I didn't understand.

If companies decide to cover partners that's fine as long as they don't only cover some partners.

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I understood your point about taking marriage out of the system. It was the other part that I didn't understand.

If companies decide to cover partners that's fine as long as they don't only cover some partners.

Right, if they do decide to cover patners all legally contracted partners would be covered.

That is what I am saying.

DD

[moestavern19]

Homosexuality is immoral and has not been proven to be anything more but then a lifestyle freely chosen by those who engage in it. These people deserve all the individual rights as Americans and nothing else. There should be no special rights for these people, and I will damned if I'm forced to acknowledge their immorality as a constitutionally protected entity.

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by moestavern19
Homosexuality is immoral and has not been proven to be anything more but then a lifestyle freely chosen by those who engage in it. These people deserve all the individual rights as Americans and nothing else. There should be no special rights for these people, and I will damned if I'm forced to acknowledge their immorality as a constitutionally protected entity.

Mo,

Would you agree that marriage, legally speaking, is nothing more than a contract between 2 people?

If so, then all people should have the right to enter into a contractual agreement.

Otherwise it is discrimination.

Thou shall not judge, leave it up to the entity upstairs.

DD

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by moestavern19
Homosexuality is immoral and has not been proven to be anything more but then a lifestyle freely chosen by those who engage in it. These people deserve all the individual rights as Americans and nothing else. There should be no special rights for these people, and I will damned if I'm forced to acknowledge their immorality as a constitutionally protected entity.

Mo, actually you are wrong about what has been proven. It hasn't been proven to be choice, not has it been conclusively proven to be genetic. But allowing people to marry somebody they love isn't giving them special rights, but it's giving them the same rights.

I'm curious if it's a choice, at what point did you choose to be straight and not follow homosexuality?

I'm sorry that homosexuality makes you so uncomfortable that you don't want to give homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, but that doesn't mean it's ok to give them less rights than others.

[Saint Louis]

Mo,

Your forcing your religuous beliefs on others. The Romans and Greeks seemed to thrive with homosexuality in their society. Each culture has its own definition of what is right and wrong, but I don't see how homosexual behavior is a threat to society in general. Homosexuality seems to make a lot of people uncomfortable. Just because someone makes you feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean their rights should be trampled upon.

[moestavern19]

DD - Discrimination is a weasel word. 40 years ago it was a good thing to be discriminant, now it has been twisted into a euphemism for racism and bigotry.

Let us not dumb down marriage legally and refer to it as a contract, it is probably more of a covenant if anything, which is defined in legal terms as an unconditional promise to perform. The states that voted yesterday made it clear that marriage is to be only between a man and a woman, which I feel to be the correct ascertainment of facts.

Do not try to guilt me into tripping over my own beliefs because it won't happen, the only judgement I'm making here is based on what I feel to be right.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by moestavern19

Do not try to guilt me into tripping over my own beliefs because it won't happen, the only judgement I'm making here is based on what I feel to be right.

I don't fault you for making that judgement, just for legislating your judgement to others. You were able to judge for yourself, and others should be allowed to as well. Whatever decision those people make, I would hope that the law wouldn't discriminate.

[moestavern19]

Originally posted by Saint Louis
Mo,

Your forcing your religuous beliefs on others. The Romans and Greeks seemed to thrive with homosexuality in their society. Each culture has its own definition of what is right and wrong, but I don't see how homosexual behavior is a threat to society in general. Homosexuality seems to make a lot of people uncomfortable. Just because someone makes you feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean their rights should be trampled upon.

When you say rights, what is it you are talking about? Can a gay person not go outside and walk around? Can a gay person not burn a flag? These people deserve as much consideration in the law as people who think they should be legally joined in union to animals. YOU force YOUR belief on me by making me adhere to new rules adapted into the United States constitution to make provisions for this immoral lifestyle.

I think there are more than a few states, including my own (California) who feel the same way.

[Saint Louis]

I should know better then to discuss things like this with religuous zealots.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by moestavern19
When you say rights, what is it you are talking about? Can a gay person not go outside and walk around? Can a gay person not burn a flag? These people deserve as much consideration in the law as people who think they should be legally joined in union to animals. YOU force YOUR belief on me by making me adhere to new rules adapted into the United States constitution to make provisions for this immoral lifestyle.

I think there are more than a few states, including my own (California) who feel the same way.

Heterosexuals have the right to marry a person who they choose and love. Homosexuals do not have the right. By legally allowing them the same right doesn't force you to accept gay marriage. You won't be forced to marry a person of the same sex. The belief that homosexuals should be allowed to marry a person they love like heterosexuals are isn't forcing anything on you. It's allowing them the same freedom.

I know that since some states allowed legal gay marriages, my own marriage hasn't suffered at all. In fact nothing has changed for my marriage. What has changed is that in some places people who used to not be allowed to share the same happy stable committed relationship with the benefits that go along with are now allowed to share them.

As for changing the constitution you have it backwards. It was the Republicans that wanted to change the constitution to keep them out, not liberals who wanted to change it.

[moestavern19]

Originally posted by Saint Louis
I should know better then to discuss things like this with religuous zealots.

Afraid of being found ignorant?

Again you try and discredit me by inciting religious fanaticism, but there are many people who feel the same way and have no religious affiliation at all.

[BrianKagy]

She has taken the news of the 11 new gay-union bannings and the swings in the house and senate very hard

****, her relationship got on the ballot??? That sucks! If I were her, I would stay with my girlfriend no matter what the election said.

[Saint Louis]

Ignorant of what? Tell me how homosexuals getting married and sharing benefits like insurance is bad. What harm is it to society. Give me one reason other then it is immoral.

[moestavern19]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Heterosexuals have the right to marry a person who they choose and love. Homosexuals do not have the right. By legally allowing them the same right doesn't force you to accept gay marriage. You won't be forced to marry a person of the same sex. The belief that homosexuals should be allowed to marry a person they love like heterosexuals are isn't forcing anything on you. It's allowing them the same freedom.

I know that since some states allowed legal gay marriages, my own marriage hasn't suffered at all. In fact nothing has changed for my marriage. What has changed is that in some places people who used to not be allowed to share the same happy stable committed relationship with the benefits that go along with are now allowed to share them.

As for changing the constitution you have it backwards. It was the Republicans that wanted to change the constitution to keep them out, not liberals who wanted to change it.

I believe the issue will soon be brought up before the Supreme Court and will be resolved there. I do not care if you consider yourself a homosexual, you have the right to your own life and can do whatever you want. My problem is when you try and get special consideration... these people in most cases are not looking for a piece of paper that declares they are married... they are looking for acknowledgement and attention, they want to be recognized for what they are, often times only to try and shove it in the face of those who disapprove. As long as I do not have to condone them or recognize them legally in any way, I could care less about what they do.

[DonnyMost]

Originally posted by BrianKagy
****, her relationship got on the ballot??? That sucks! If I were her, I would stay with my girlfriend no matter what the election said.

I hope you're not trying to be funny.


..or wait, maybe I do.

Either way, crap all over this.

[Ender120]

Originally posted by moestavern19
I believe the issue will soon be brought up before the Supreme Court and will be resolved there. I do not care if you consider yourself a homosexual, you have the right to your own life and can do whatever you want. My problem is when you try and get special consideration... these people in most cases are not looking for a piece of paper that declares they are married... they are looking for acknowledgement and attention, they want to be recognized for what they are, often times only to try and shove it in the face of those who disapprove. As long as I do not have to condone them or recognize them legally in any way, I could care less about what they do.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month.

"I do not care if you consider yourself a minority, you have the right to your own life and can do whatever you want. My problem is when you try and get special consideration...these people in most cases are not looking for education concering the importance of various minority figures...they are looking for acknowledgement and attention, they want to be recognized for what they are, often times only to try and shove it in the face of those who are not. As long as I do not have to condone them or recognize them in any way, I could care less about what they do."

Your posts reek of bigotry.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by moestavern19
I believe the issue will soon be brought up before the Supreme Court and will be resolved there. I do not care if you consider yourself a homosexual, you have the right to your own life and can do whatever you want. My problem is when you try and get special consideration... these people in most cases are not looking for a piece of paper that declares they are married... they are looking for acknowledgement and attention, they want to be recognized for what they are, often times only to try and shove it in the face of those who disapprove. As long as I do not have to condone them or recognize them legally in any way, I could care less about what they do.

But that recognition is already allowed to heterosexual couples. So giving the same recognition to other couples isn't giving them anything special. It is only giving them the same benefits that hetero couples already enjoy. They are getting anything extra over and above what traditional couples get. They only get the exact same thing.

[Zac D]

Originally posted by moestavern19
DD - Discrimination is a weasel word. 40 years ago it was a good thing to be discriminant, now it has been twisted into a euphemism for racism and bigotry.

Sounds similar to what happened with "liberal," doesn't it?

[4chuckie]

Let me say somthing I know I'll probably get roasted for:
After yesterday's election result it should be apparent to the gay/lesbian community that alot of people came out to vote against their right to marry (the 11 states all had had very high voter levels compared to other states). They have to ask themselves why? I agree there are some people who will never agree with it but they are not the majority of the population, in fact they are less than 20% I would guess (and that may be too high).
Maybe they need to look at how they present themselves to the public (especially during this election). At Bush events here in Columbus the protestors (some of who were gay and lesbian) tried to rile up the conservative base. Kind of like the old say if you mess with the bull you get the horn. You present yourself as an person who dresses strangely, and draws attention to yourself, tehn expect people to be scared.
Is that stereotyping, yes obviously it is. But I would guess there are many rural people (where alot of the conservative vote came from) that doesn't have much exposure to alternative lifestyles and when they see angry people, openly saying they are gay and proud and they want the President out, well it strikes them wrong.

All I am saying is the gay and lesbian community needs to show America that they are regular people. Will everyone give them a chance, no probably not but they need to change the perception of alot of people.

[111chase111]

Why does everyone make this issue so black and white? Why does it have to be pro-gay or anti-gay. I have no problems with Gay people who are, for all intents and purposes, "normal" people (as I see it anyways!).

What bothers me is when I see a Gay pride parade that is promoted as a family event and, instead of just "normal" people marching supporting their cause, you get blatent eroticism thrown in your face. Now, I'm not against erotic but it's got its time and place. I'm not even against "gay" erotic (especially lesbians... ;) )

So, can I be okay with gay people but offended by extreme elements of gay culture? Also, just because you choose a same-sex partner doesn't have to mean you buy into "gay" culture (whatever that is).

My solution? The only thing government recognizes as a legal contract is some sort of union available to any couple that wants to enter into it. Leave marraige to the churches.

[Manny Ramirez]

Isn't marriage defined as a union between man and woman?

So, if homosexual marriages ever got allowed, then we would need to redefine the word "marriage".

[nyquil82]

this issue reeks of poo, but i don't understand the argument that gays are getting married just to get benefits and then straight people will marry their straight roomates to get benefits. I've never met a gay person trying to get married for the priviliges, and I've never met a person getting married just for the privileges. And Manny, no disrespect, but the word "we" obviously doesn't mean everyone.

then again, I don't understand what the fuss is about 5-10% of the population, and why they are considered to be more important than issues such as crime, education and the environment. I thought conservatives were "big issue" people, why bother over something so insignificant that doesn't interrupt your life?

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by Manny Ramirez
Isn't marriage defined as a union between man and woman?

So, if homosexual marriages ever got allowed, then we would need to redefine the word "marriage".

Defined where?

But that is why I would remove any reference to marriage, and just call it a legal contract.

I hate legislating morality.

Whatever happened to:

THOU SHALL NOT JUDGE?

DD

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by Manny Ramirez
Isn't marriage defined as a union between man and woman?

So, if homosexual marriages ever got allowed, then we would need to redefine the word "marriage".

So be it. We already redefined the word "gay."

Marriage between a woman and man as a sacred institution is a fundamentally Judeo/Christian idea. But it doesn't exist as such in all religions. This religious idea is what people take for granted as the only definition and understanding of marriage, and can not accept it being challenged or changed. The time will come however.

[Manny Ramirez]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Defined where?

But that is why I would remove any reference to marriage, and just call it a legal contract.

I hate legislating morality.

Whatever happened to:

THOU SHALL NOT JUDGE?

DD

Here:

"In 1999, in response to court rulings and some early inklings that the definition of marriage could also be challenged, the official opposition party put forth a votable motion to defend the traditional definition of marriage: "the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that Parliament will do everything in its power to protect that definition." That motion passed handily 216-55."



And Dakota, this is the 2nd time you have brought up "Thou shall not judge". Since you have read and know the Bible, I am sure you are familiar with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I didn't want to bring this up, but if you are going to keep using biblical stuff (and using all caps to boot), then expect to hear that the Bible has never been in favor of this practice.

[DaDakota]

Manny,

Not saying the bible is in favor of it, I am saying if you believe in the Bible then you should believe that it is not up to us to judge.

Also Manny, we do not have a parlament, that is Canada's definition.

DD

[ima_drummer2k]

I think straight people getting divorced is a bigger problem in this country than gay people getting married.

[Manny Ramirez]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Manny,

Not saying the bible is in favor of it, I am saying if you believe in the Bible then you should believe that it is not up to us to judge.

Also Manny, we do not have a parlament, that is Canada's definition.

DD

Well that is great that you keep reminding us about that biblical principle. We get it, okay? If you want to keep reminding us, I'll keep reminding YOU that homosexuality is not approved in the Bible.

And you wanted a definition of marriage - you didn't say how specific. I tried to find the sociological definition but didn't really feel like putting out the effort, so I used the first thing - so sue me.

[DaDakota]

I just don't think it is anyone's business, especially the governments.

People should have equal rights to love whomever they choose, their rights should be protected.

If a man wants another man, and it is 2 consenting adults, who are we to say what is right and what is wrong, it is a choice, and it does not effect us.

Don't know why the government needs to legislate a choice????

:confused:

DD

[giddyup]

So nobody has the actual language of the proposed amendment? I can't find it.

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by Manny Ramirez
And you wanted a definition of marriage - you didn't say how specific. I tried to find the sociological definition but didn't really feel like putting out the effort, so I used the first thing - so sue me.

No, you are missing my point.


I think government should view marriage as a purely contractual union entered into willingly by 2 parties.

AND, the government should not legislate the sex of either of those parties. In the government's eyes it is a legal contract.

It has nothing to do with religion, seperation of church and state, remember?

Now, I have no problem with the church outlawing gay marriages. Churches are their own institutions.

But, government outlawing gay partnerships is discrimination, people should have a right to choose whom to love and whom to enter into a binding contract with, you should not legislate it.

That is why I am in favor of removing any reference to "marriage" in our legal system, make it what it is...a binding contract.

This allows each person to have equal rights.

IMHO.

DD

[DrewP]

mar·riagePronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


Thats marriage. Gays should be able to have a "legal union" which includes the tax benefits etc. that comes with being married, but MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Its just calling it something different in this scenario.

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by DrewP
mar·riagePronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


Thats marriage. Gays should be able to have a "legal union" which includes the tax benefits etc. that comes with being married, but MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Its just calling it something different in this scenario.

Fine, legal union works too.

DD

[nyquil82]

IMO, just keep the status quo, I don't think the country has an overwhelming majority that wants to either ban it or legalize it. i still think its dumb that so many people have such a strong opinion on something that is likely to never affect their lives. if its just because they are uncomfortable, might as well outlaw geriatric porn while we're at it.

[Manny Ramirez]

Dakota,

That's fine. I wish you had posted that sooner; would have saved me some posts in this thread.:)

I don't agree with that view; I look at marriage, I guess in a sociological way, as an institution. If same sex marriages were allowed, to me marriage is no longer an institution. It is something else like a union, which is not an institution like a traditional marriage or the family, if you see what I am saying.

[DaDakota]

You are free to look at it however you like, I am only speaking of it as how the government should view it.

I am a happily married man with 2 kids a wonderful wife, and my point is that if someone else finds happiness in a partnership like mine, great, but if they find happiness in an alternative partnership, than whom am I to tell them what they can and can't do, and the government should certainly not have any say.

We are a government of laws, and those laws should protect each and everyone on of us equally, regardless of skin color, religious views, or sexual orientation, each of us deserves the same respect and protection of the constitution and our laws. No matter if it is popular or not.

That is what our country was founded on to protect everyone, not just the majority.

DD

[DCkid]

Originally posted by DrewP

Gays should be able to have a "legal union" which includes the tax benefits etc. that comes with being married, but MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
Hmmm...I have no problem with legal union and some of the benefits that go along with being married, but I don't think tax benefits is one of them. Why do we have tax benefits for married people in the first place? Is it supposed to promote family values by attempting to relieve some of the financial stress that doom many marriages? Or is it supposed to give two people a financial break to make it easier to raise and take care of their children? I don't know exactly what the reason behind it is, but I just think giving tax benefits to gay couples may be pushing it. I mean, what's the justification?

[Manny Ramirez]

Originally posted by DaDakota
We are a government of laws, and those laws should protect each and everyone on of us equally, regardless of skin color, religious views, or sexual orientation, each of us deserves the same respect and protection of the constitution and our laws. No matter if it is popular or not.

That is what our country was founded on to protect everyone, not just the majority.



But you really can't say that. Because if you could we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. You agree or not?

[DaDakota]

I agree that the government can not write it into the laws, but it is implied when you guarantee rights to everyone.

DD

[Saint Louis]

First off I'm not gay, it would be news to the wife and kids if I was. That said, I do support giving gay couples equal status as heterosexual married couples.

I am in agreement with others on the board that the government should stop issuing marriage licenses and start calling them civil union licenses. Let churches conduct the "marriage" ceremony. A church can be as selective as they want about who they marry.

Today many gay couples have children, so child rearing isn't solely a heterosexual task anymore.

As with any group, the most outlandish are the ones that get on TV. If you do not want your children at a gay rights parade, your choice not to take them. I wouldn't take mine to one anymore then I would take them to a Klan march. A lot has been said about it being outlawed in the bible. One could make the world a pretty miserable place by taking every passage in the Bible literally.

I think people should think real hard before amending the constituion. Remember the constitution once banned the sale of alcohol and then another amendment made it legal again. Sometimes its best not to be a lemming and rush with the crowd over a cliff.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
I think straight people getting divorced is a bigger problem in this country than gay people getting married.
One of these days, the topic will be divorce rates among couples, without regard to gender. The same divisiveness brought about by the Republican Party using this as a "wedge issue," which worked beautifully, btw... give Rove and company credit, mirrors the use of fear of racial integration for the same purpose.

I'm old enough to remember when fear of equal rights for "inferior" black people (that's not what they were called then, but I'd prefer not to use the lingo) was used very effectively by the Democratic Party as a wedge issue, not only in the South, but in other parts of the country. I feel the same way about this issue (gay marriage, gays "choosing" their lifestyle, etc.) as I felt about discrimination against Blacks. And, someday, my children will look back at this period the same way the vast majority today looks back at the fight for racial equality in the '50's and '60's.

They will say, "What were they thinking??"


Nice post, ima_drummer. I've been married for 26 years.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by Ender120
And while we're at it, let's get rid of Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month.

This is actually a good idea. Important black and hispanic historical figures can be studied right alongside white, asian, eskimo, native american, etc. leaders. When you get to the 1880's you talk about Booker T Washington, early 1900's you talk about George Washington Carver, etc. We are all just people, there is no need to differentiate between black history, hispanic history, or anything else.

[Batman Jones]

SM:

The reason to differentiate is that certain cultures in our country have been discriminated against disproportionate to the majority and still are. And it is to the benefit of young people, of those groups and majority ones, to understand both the contributions and the struggles of those cultures.

We do not live in a color blind society. We should continue to aspire to one, yes, but we're not nearly there and even when we do get there, we should never forget. In all our history, no woman or minority has ever secured a major party nomination for president. Look at the race and gender makeup of our country and think about that. In our country's history only white men have run for president. Color blind society? I don't think so. In January, Barak Obama will be sworn in as the ONLY black in the Senate. We're not there yet.

And, as this election proved, bigotry of other sorts is still alive and well. One day, during gay rights month (or week or day or whatever), Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists will look back on the current bigotry against gays with sober disappointment and a promise to never let it happen again. But we won't forget discrimination against gays and we shouldn't forget discrimination against blacks and Latinos either. Especially while it still exists.

[StupidMoniker]

I don't think we should forget discrimination. I think we should promote equality. One way to do that is by eliminating these artificial constructs that serve only to segregate and differentiate. We got rid of black and white bathrooms and black and white drinking fountains and black and white schools and we should get rid of black and white history. It is time we started just learning human history.

All of the most important contributions and struggles of minorities can be taught right alongside the whites' contributions and struggles that we learn about all year. I don't know about when and where you went to school, but at my school you learned about black history during black history month, and ONLY during black history month. To me it made black history seem somehow less important, like it wasn't worth mentioning during the regular history lessons.

During Feb. we can mention the contribution of Garret Morgan, because he isn't going to be mentioned when we learn about Marconi, Franklin, and Edison. We can learn about Booker T Washington, because he won't be mentioned when we talk about Lincoln and Grant. Black history month was important because the regular curriculum did not include black history, and certainly not outside of the context of how it related to whites. I think that we live in a more enlightened time, and we can integrate black history into the regular curriculum year round, so it isn't treated as second class history.

[insane man]

i think homosexuality is immoral. in my religion.

i fail to see why that should be a consideration in this country's legal system.

this idiocy that the republicans have capitalized on that god ends at gay folks and abortion is sick. you wanna get all moral? what about the hundreds of references about the poor in the bible? how about helping them way more?

if your morality restricts the rights of others....in this country we discard that. it should be kept personal. make sure you teach your kids not to be gay. dont be friend people who are gay. but aside from that get over it.

how about we institute the positive morality our religions have about peace and justice and equity? about helping the needy?

only idiots would fail to understnad that if we spread compassionate values our religions had first...we'd make much more headway in the morality of the country than if we preached hell and immorality down everyones throat.

[insane man]

ps: interesting tidbit. the guy who introduced the defense of marriage act was twice divorced and thrice married.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by DaDakota
It is a democracy, and people have a right to their own opinions, we have to realize that we are not going to agree with the populas on everything.

Console your friend, she can still be a good partner, just can't be married to her in those states.

Marriage is a legal contract anyway, they should just eliminate it all together, people should be able to partner with whomever, but not expect benefits, let the employers decide if they want to cover heterosexual marriages, or same sex partnerships, or even families.

Leave it up to the companies to decide what benefits to provide, don't legislate it.

DD


Dead on Point

I don't think Marriage should be ANYWHERE on the Law Books
Marriage *is* a religious thing. . . . so why can
church and state cross here . . but not other places?

That being said. . . Tolerance cuts both ways . . . .
I cannot throw a 10 Gallon hat on my head
then run around calling it a yamaka [I butchered that word
but the Hat that the Jewish People were at temple]
Would that not be disrespectfil to them and their faith?

Rocket River

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Mo,

Would you agree that marriage, legally speaking, is nothing more than a contract between 2 people?

If so, then all people should have the right to enter into a contractual agreement.

Otherwise it is discrimination.

Thou shall not judge, leave it up to the entity upstairs.

DD


DaDa

Thou shall not Judge. . . that is the most abused line in the bible
It is only used when someone is judge badly . . but when someone
does something good or seen as good. .t hey don't break out
the old DON'T JUDGE ME THING . . .

I beleive homosexuality is a choice as well
like liking Chocolate

That being said .. . . one should not be discriminated for a choice
I think most companies would opt to cover NO PARTNERS
rather than get into that quadmire of Publicity



Rocket River

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
I think straight people getting divorced is a bigger problem in this country than gay people getting married.


divorce is not a bad thing
you would rather people stay in bad marriages?

Rocket River

[Rocket River]

MOST PERSONAL THING

We have a president that acts like Black Folx don't even Exist.
He refuses to even talk to any of the black leaders
the CBC had to stage a d*mn near sit in to talk to him
and He did not even bother to come on Black shows to
give his platform


Exactly how am I suppose to feel that THIS GUY
has my best interest at heart . . .that he is MY representative
to the world?

Rocket River

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Rocket River
divorce is not a bad thing
you would rather people stay in bad marriages?
Divorce is a HORRIBLE thing if there are kids involved. It's devastating for them. Believe me...

As far as people staying in bad marriages, I'd rather have them not get married in the first place if they don't take the covenant seriously and jump ship the first time they get 'bored' or get in a fight. People who aren't willing to work at a marraige shouldn't get married at all.

[Isabel]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Divorce is a HORRIBLE thing if there are kids involved. It's devastating for them. Believe me...

As far as people staying in bad marriages, I'd rather have them not get married in the first place if they don't take the covenant seriously and jump ship the first time they get 'bored' or get in a fight. People who aren't willing to work at a marraige shouldn't get married at all.

Of course that's ideal, but what if you don't come to your senses about the person/marriage until later? You can't change the past. This doesn't mean you should just go and leave the person the first time you feel like it, and I know marriages are supposed to last a lifetime, but for some situations I'm glad people have the option of leaving. Sometimes things are just messed up.

Kids complicate the picture; I would expect people to work a lot harder to stay together if they were someone's parents. You have to think about who gets helped and who gets hurt.

[Oski2005]

Does anybody have a statistic of the average age of couples at the time of marriage? It's my belief that too many people get married when they're young, like right out of high school or college.

[NJRocket]

Being recognized as a married couple is nothing more than having a certificate to prove it. If people were not allowed to co habitate, I would feel bad...but thats clearly not the case.

[thadeus]

Originally posted by insane man
how about we institute the positive morality our religions have about peace and justice and equity? about helping the needy?

So many are willing to pound their chest and proudly declare their 'morality' when it comes to telling other people what they can't do, but these same chest-beaters disappear into the bushes (heh) when the idea of helping poor people (for example) comes up.

Publicly declaring your 'morality' against another person then calling it a day is so much easier than actually doing something.

Excellent post, BTW.

[FranchiseBlade]

I'm glad that someone brought up the morality about peace, and helping others etc. I was listening to a Muslim professor who pointed out that in 2000 Muslims overwhelmingly supported George W. Bush. They did so because he said that his role model was Jesus Christ. The Muslims felt they couldn't go wrong voting for a guy with strong religious beliefs who's role model was Jesus Christ.

The professor went on to say that Bush wouldn't get that overwhelming majority this time, and that he didn't believe that Jesus' would adopt a pre-emptive war strategy.

Morals mean more than just saying Gays are bad(if they mean that at all.) Morals also deal with being just, honest, and charitable.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Rocket River
MOST PERSONAL THING

We have a president that acts like Black Folx don't even Exist.
He refuses to even talk to any of the black leaders
the CBC had to stage a d*mn near sit in to talk to him
and He did not even bother to come on Black shows to
give his platform


Exactly how am I suppose to feel that THIS GUY
has my best interest at heart . . .that he is MY representative
to the world?

Rocket River
Are Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Rod Paige not black or not black enough or what exactly?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Are Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Rod Paige not black or not black enough or what exactly?

I think we are talking about qualified black appointees that make a difference. Powell isn't listened to. Rod Paige isn't competent. Rice is qaualified, but is possibly the most dishonest member of the whole administration.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I think we are talking about qualified black appointees that make a difference. Powell isn't listened to. Rod Paige isn't competent. Rice is qaualified, but is possibly the most dishonest member of the whole administration.
I wish Colin Powell would replace Rumsfeld. I don't know enough about Paige to make a comment. I'm surprised by your harsh judgement of Rice; I suppose you are referring to some memogate...

However, the complaint was about Bush's attitude toward black people. I think his record of appointments upends that criticism.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
I wish Colin Powell would replace Rumsfeld. I don't know enough about Paige to make a comment. I'm surprised by your harsh judgement of Rice; I suppose you are referring to some memogate...

However, the complaint was about Bush's attitude toward black people. I think his record of appointments upends that criticism.

The memogate stuff was only one example about Rice. She also lied about the aluminum tubing claiming that it could really only be used for one thing? It had several uses, the least likely of which was the one she was claiming as its sole use. Even after learning that it was almost impossible for those tubes to be used for nuclear weaponry, she still made the claim. She flat out lied when making that one. Rice also tried to weasel out of testifying before congress at all, while going on all sorts of talk shows discussing the same topics. Rice also asked the media not to play the unedited Bin Laden tapes on television because it might make him more sympathetic. I don't like censorship. I should be able to listen to OBL all day long.

Rice seems extremely smart, and has a way of making even her dishonest explanations of things seem like she's making the case as plain as daylight for something. Perhpaps because she's so good and sneaky at her lies, that I dislike her so much.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by moestavern19
When you say rights, what is it you are talking about? Can a gay person not go outside and walk around? Can a gay person not burn a flag? These people deserve as much consideration in the law as people who think they should be legally joined in union to animals. YOU force YOUR belief on me by making me adhere to new rules adapted into the United States constitution to make provisions for this immoral lifestyle.

I think there are more than a few states, including my own (California) who feel the same way.

This post was so full of red herrings that I had to respond to it.

1. "When you say rights, what is it you are talking about? Can a gay person not go outside and walk around? Can a gay person not burn a flag?" - While marriage isn't a specifically defined Constitutional right its underlying constitutionality goes straight to freedom of association in the 1st Ammendment and even to the inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. To deny the same type privelages that accorded under the law to one type of union while discriminating against another is a violation of equal treatment under the 14th.

So yes gays not being allowed to marry is a violation of their civil rights.

2. "These people deserve as much consideration in the law as people who think they should be legally joined in union to animals." - This is perhaps the most stupid and uniformed argument out there that homosexuality can be equated to bestiality or pedophilia.

Its all about consent. Animals and children can't consent but adults can so marriage between same sex adults in no way equals marriage or sex between adults and animals or childredn.

3. "YOU force YOUR belief on me by making me adhere to new rules adapted into the United States constitution to make provisions for this immoral lifestyle." - Well boo hoo to you. Living in a diverse society we're force to put up with a lot of things that we don't like or think is immoral. I think Televangelists who use religion to get wealthy are immoral but Constitutionally they're within their rights to make money that way.

4. "I think there are more than a few states, including my own (California) who feel the same way" - Just because a lot of people feel that way doesn't make it right. It makes it easier to legislate but that doesn't mean its right or even Constitutional. In the 1960's most Texans thought segregation was proper but I think there are few Texans now who would say the same thing.

[Ender120]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
This is actually a good idea. Important black and hispanic historical figures can be studied right alongside white, asian, eskimo, native american, etc. leaders. When you get to the 1880's you talk about Booker T Washington, early 1900's you talk about George Washington Carver, etc. We are all just people, there is no need to differentiate between black history, hispanic history, or anything else.

I understand this and have wholeheartedly agreed with it for some time.

But, following the logic presented to me, I was saying that we should get rid of the months, not because we are really all equal and it is a form of discrimination, but instead because that by having these months to learn about their individual histories, some would claim that minorities are just desperate for attention.

Just as was said about gays.

So sure, get rid of Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month. But do it for the right reasons.

And following the logic in this thread, they wouldn't be the right reasons, but would instead be oppressive and bigoted.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by giddyup
Are Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Rod Paige not black or not black enough or what exactly?

I like Colin Powell - He is not out of the traditional Black Experience [son of Immagrants] He does speak up on alot of issues . . but he is rarely listened to and it basically sacrificed his integrity to protect the Admin. . . .

Condi . . .Condi . . Condi . . . . she rarely aligns herself with Black America. . . even from her stanford Days . . . . She IMO is self interested and more devoted to he husba , , ,er Pres Bush than to the country in general . . .

Rod Paige. . . where the h*ll is he. . . I think he has spoken
maybe twice during the whole 4 yrs. . . I would have thought
him a decent selection but he is so low profile he might as well not be there. . . .

Appointing people for the skin tone .. . is one thing . . ..Esp when one of 3 speaks out for those of their skin tone .. .

you cannot prop a pupper black person to represent black people
ONE MORE THING
We don't grab a Gay Guy or a Jewish guy . . and say SEE this is your leader
You need to the person the people follow. . . . .

Why is that he cannot speak to the Congressional Black Caucus?
Just show up on Tavis or any black show and tell black folx why we should vote for him? The end answer is. . .we just were not that important to him.

Rocket River

[Trader_Jorge]

There are several reasons why Bush doesn't do what you are recommending, RocketRiver

1) Many black leaders have been openly hostile to Bush (the NAACP in particular)
2) Many black leaders and entertainers (tv show hosts and the like) have lied and insulted Bush ona daily basis
3) Bush is not going to speak in front of a very hostile environment in which people can't control themselves. It makes for bad PR.
4) Blacks vote at low rates
5) Blacks vote in lockstep -- for liberal candidates who can provide for their self interest.

You act like this is a one-way street, RR. It's not. That's the simple truth.

[StupidMoniker]

Ironically, by ignoring the black population, I think Bush took a higher percentage of the black vote than any Republican in a good long while.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Ironically, by ignoring the black population, I think Bush took a higher percentage of the black vote than any Republican in a good long while.
Is what you mean to say this: by not pandering to the black population, Bush earned the resepct of a lot of black Americans?

[RocketManJosh]

Originally posted by Rocket River


Condi . . .Condi . . Condi . . . . she rarely aligns herself with Black America. . . even from her stanford Days . . . . She IMO is self interested and more devoted to he husba , , ,er Pres Bush than to the country in general . . .

Rocket River

What exactly is "Black America?" To me that is a group of people that can all think for themselves, and it is not one unified view.

I just think its rediculous that Condi gets criticized by you and others for not thinking like the average black person.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by RocketManJosh
What exactly is "Black America?" To me that is a group of people that can all think for themselves, and it is not one unified view.

I just think its rediculous that Condi gets criticized by you and others for not thinking like the average black person.

For not supporting things that help us as a people?
For supporting policies that seem to actively seeked to destroy us.?

Jorge - He is the president. . . so u telling me it is ok for him to only support and help PART of america that likes him . .. and I don't know if u notice. . but Jay Leno/Letterman/etc are not black . .and they talk about him far more than black folx

Rocket River

[JPM0016]

Originally posted by Rocket River
For not supporting things that help us as a people?
For supporting policies that seem to actively seeked to destroy us.?


1.) School Vouchers

2.) Destroy you? please elaborate

[whag00]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge

3) Bush is not going to speak in front of a very hostile environment in which people can't control themselves. It makes for bad PR.


We are all just a bunch of rowdy thugs.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by whag00
We are all just a bunch of rowdy thugs.
That's not what he said. Be reasonable.

[IROC it]

This will still be an issue in 6004.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by JPM0016
1.) School Vouchers

2.) Destroy you? please elaborate

1. Defacto Segregation
2. Not so much destroy . . . that was hyperbole . . .but the policies enacted by this admin . .. .. are not helpful . . . .Anti Affirm Action etc. I don't think this admin is good for Poor people in general .. . .

Rocket River

[FranchiseBlade]

I think the whole gay marriage thing comes down to people saying," I believe it is immoral so YOU shouldn't be allowed to do it."

That's a horrible way to govern in what is supposed to be a free society.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by IROC it
This will still be an issue in 6004.

I highly doubt it. Prior to the last few months the trend had been for more acceptance of gays and gay unions. Companies and localities on their own were putting in domestic partner benefits. Gays no longer had to hide in closets and were more open than ever. The long term societal trend looks like eventual full acceptance of homosexuality.

IF this anti-gay marriage ammendment passes I predict 60 years from now we'll be looking at like Prohibition.

[mulletman]

i'm sure this summarizes what every homosexual in america feels right now:

"I wish someone would explain to me why this country decided to use this election as a referendum on my life and rejecting it - who the **** asked you to worry about who I ****, marry, love or co-habitate with? What gives you the ****in right?"

--from a blog on the net

[RocketMan Tex]

If I were a gay man, I would be going gun shopping right about now. Gay people are in this administration's crosshairs, and the finger is on the trigger.

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by mulletman
i'm sure this summarizes what every homosexual in america feels right now:

"I wish someone would explain to me why this country decided to use this election as a referendum on my life and rejecting it - who the **** asked you to worry about who I ****, marry, love or co-habitate with? What gives you the ****in right?"

--from a blog on the net

Noone is saying they can't be gay (or who have sex with, love or co-habitate with anyone they choose) the law just says the state won't recognize a gay/lesbian marriage in that state.