The Personal Effects

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

That is what I am saying.

DD

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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