lummox Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 why? it seems contrary to the spirit of previous constitutional amendments that have generally guaranteed rights rather than deny them. and why go straight to the top with this silly shizzle? why not let the california courts work it out for awhile. politicizing marriage seems gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I was wondering who it was would bring this one up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 i have an observation --and it aint like i seek this shit out. it is being crammed down my throat by every news organization-- every picture i seen of a lesbo couple gettin married looks like a dude and a fat chick getting married. wtf? is it really 'same-sex' when these folks play top and bottom roles just like man and woman couples? wtf? maybe e-rock can comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 the way I look at it is if you can find love, and some one who loves youback ans wants to hold you above all otheres and treat you well etc. so be it. more happieness and power to you  I agree Lummox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 In my view, it's a state's rights issue, just like abortion. Keep the fucking Federal Government out of it; they're too involved as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 On an intellectual level, I agree with you, but I still get the heebee jeebees thinking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 On an intellectual level, I agree with you, but I still get the heebee jeebees thinking about it. so here is an idea... mind yer own business and only think abiut what YOU are doing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Bush said the nation must "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever," Â George must have not noticed that the meaning of marriage changed when the divorce rate hit 50%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arlen Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Maybe it'll read like this: Â Amendment XVIII Â Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating [insert hateful reference to homosexuals] within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for [insert fundamentalist reference to marriage] purposes is hereby prohibited. Â Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Â Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 i just read an article on salon.com about a couple who just got married. they waited at the san francisco city hall day after day in the rain for the chance. that is some strong desire for a piece of paper. i reckon it must be love. right on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Bush said the nation must "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever," Â George must have not noticed that the meaning of marriage changed when the divorce rate hit 50%. Â Yeah, now it means, "I want to share my life with you and give you half of all my stuff in 5-10 years." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 i just read an article on salon.com about a couple who just got married. they waited at the san francisco city hall day after day in the rain for the chance. that is some strong desire for a piece of paper. i reckon it must be love. right on. must be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 On an intellectual level, I agree with you, but I still get the heebee jeebees thinking about it. so here is an idea... mind yer own business and only think abiut what YOU are doing To the extent that the government confers certain benefits, like tax breaks and other priviledges, marriage is of concern to me. The institution of marriage exists for the benefit of offspring and not for any other reason. It is to the benefit of society as a whole to provide for the proper upbringing of children. Beyond that, I don't care what you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arlen Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I know a few gay couples who are doing a great job of properly bringing up children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 The institution of marriage exists for the benefit of offspring and not for any other reason. screw reality eh? the 'institution' has been all over the place over history. i dont think you can pin it down other than saying it exists for the benefit of marriage counselors. they got boat payments too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I think the thing that needs to be recognized here by the supreme court or where ever this ends up, whether two people of the same sex gives you the creeps or not, is that being gay is obviously not a choice that is made. Being a biologist it's hard for me to understand the "phenomena" in evolutionary terms because it doesn't make sense; if you are a man and like to have sex with a man it's very unlikely you will have an offspring to pass your "gay" gene on to. Regardless of whether science can explain it or not, clearly the only choice that is being made is to whether to stay in the closet about it, and I think if you look back over human history the proportion of homosexuals is the same, just the proportion that are out about it is greater now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The institution of marriage exists for the benefit of offspring and not for any other reason. screw reality eh? the 'institution' has been all over the place over history. i dont think you can pin it down other than saying it exists for the benefit of marriage counselors. they got boat payments too. I thought marrige was invented for the church so that a man could have dominion over a women by the laws of their god. other than that I think it is useless. but if other people want to get married, more power to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 i can't believe that our federal government would waste time and tax dollars on a constitutional ammendment for this. Â first of all, isn't marriage normally a state issue? Â secondly, i'm fond of the argument that marriage is a religious sacrament that's being desicrated by homosexual marriages. marriage was started long before the church or government got involved as a business arrangement between families. sorry god had nothing to do w/it. Â i heard some gentleman interviewed regarding the recent marriages in San Francisco. he felt that if we allowed this to go on "how would we populate the earth?" i'm sorry is underpopulation a serious problem right now? did i miss something? how is ~10% of the population having a same sex marriage going to cause the species to cease to exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 i can't believe that our federal government would waste time and tax dollars on a constitutional ammendment for this. Â first of all, isn't marriage normally a state issue? Â secondly, i'm fond of the argument that marriage is a religious sacrament that's being desicrated by homosexual marriages. marriage was started long before the church or government got involved as a business arrangement between families. sorry god had nothing to do w/it. Â i heard some gentleman interviewed regarding the recent marriages in San Francisco. he felt that if we allowed this to go on "how would we populate the earth?" i'm sorry is underpopulation a serious problem right now? did i miss something? how is ~10% of the population having a same sex marriage going to cause the species to cease to exist? interesting.. so it was men selling there daughters first.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badvoodoo Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 i heard some gentleman interviewed regarding the recent marriages in San Francisco. he felt that if we allowed this to go on "how would we populate the earth?" Â If the population growth is really hurting that badly, I'd be willing to offer my services. Strictly for the sake of the future of humanity, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 not always men selling there daughters. it was often an arrangements between families to merger businesses, keep peace between families, etc. there were lots of reasons. often love and god and nothing to do with it. there are many references on this if you do a quick google search. if i recall my history correctly the catholic church didn't recognize marriage as a sacrament until the thirteenth century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Hey, while we're at it let's just open the floodgates to constitutional amendments. First off, allow foreign-born Americans to run for the office of President. Second, allow the Presidential incumbent to run for a third or subsequent administrations. Third,... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambled_legs Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 So does the gay marriage certificate stipulate who's the Bitch? Cause I mean this could only lead to fighting over who has to do the dishes, laundry, cooking, pipe cleaning etc. Â I say if we have to suffer make them suffer. In a couple of years there won't be any fairies jumping around in tootoos and leather for a parade. There will just be a bunch of fairies sitting in chairs listening to their Shrinks. Â They don't know what they're in for... just smile and say congratulations!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonanon Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Hey, while we're at it let's just open the floodgates to constitutional amendments. First off, allow foreign-born Americans to run for the office of President. Second, allow the Presidential incumbent to run for a third or subsequent administrations. Third,... Â Think they might wanna pass the ERA first? Â IMO, this whole amendment line is just so much smoke up the ass of the religious right. The only votes this admin loses by supporting it might be a few log cabin Repubs. It'll never pass, but at least they'll go down looking like they're trying to shaft the gays for god's sake. Â In the meantime, I'm happy for all of those couples down in the City. Poor Suckers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 In my view, it's a state's rights issue, just like abortion. Keep the fucking Federal Government out of it; they're too involved as it is. Â In my view, it's a HUMAN rights issue, and it will never pass ratification. The Republican Party will implode if they push this issue. I kind of hope that they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.