slothrop Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 How is banning gay marriage going to protect straight marriage? That's what I don't get. Straight people sure know how to desecrate the institution their damn selves. There's no way we have to worry about procreation going into decline, not with Mormonism being the fastest-growing religion in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx 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. yep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Harris Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 1. Keep the feds out of it!!!!! 2. Any thoughts on Arnold's comments. He said the problem is local jurisdictions defying state law. My understanding is local law can be stricter but generally not less restrictive than state or Federal law. Hmm . . . that's may be why the feds are getting into this. Anyway, his take is this will open the door for other possible defyings of state law by local goverments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinsley Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Who said it was going to protect strait marriage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Typically constitutioinal amendments deal more with a framework of to run run government, not a policy issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 heres an example of looking like a dumbass when ya use the bible to defend your bigotry. an open letter to Laura Schlessinger from "Jake": [Laura Schlessinger recently said that as an observant Orthodox Jew homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US listener.] Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them. a.) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I burn it anyway? b.) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c.) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d.) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? e.) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. What should I do since the local authorities refuse to prosecute? f.) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than >homosexuality. I don't agree, especially since allergic reactions from shellfish can be fatal. Can you settle this? g.) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h.) Most of my male friends let their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How can I grow it out without looking like an Orthodox Jew? (I'm a devout Christian.) i.) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. If I wore gloves while playing football, would that be okay? j.) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan, Jake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Who said it was going to protect strait marriage? who said it should be protected. i'd say with 50% of them failing, straight marriages isn't working so well. why protect it in it's current framework? i'm being facetious. however, i think it's something to consider before we worry about the demise of the world b/c we allow some gay folks to get married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 In defense of the the sacrament of marriage, Britney Spears shall be banned from marrying for a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonanon Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The other side of the triangulation coin is that fluffing up the gay marriage issue forces Dems to choose sides. While the Bush camp isn’t afraid of comin’ right out and saying they’re agin’ it, what will Kerry (or whoever) say? Dems have more votes to lose by taking a stand on either side of the gay marriage issue. In fact, I’d say they even have votes to lose by having a nominee waffling on it. It’s almost the perfect red herring for right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 In my view, it's a HUMAN rights issue it is NOT a human rights issue, marriage is NOT a basic human right, any way you look at it if you want to stuff your schlong into some dudes colon, do it on your own time, in your own bedroom, and i dont want to know about it. dont expect the rest of society to celebrate your gayness or support your attmepts to subvert state law in the name of human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunglehead Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Exactly. God forbid the candidates talk about real issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 it is NOT a human rights issue, marriage is NOT a basic human right, any way you look at it if you want to stuff your schlong into some dudes colon, do it on your own time, in your own bedroom, and i dont want to know about it. dont expect the rest of society to celebrate your gayness or support your attmepts to subvert state law in the name of human rights. Subvert state law? So if states passed laws respecting gay marriages, you'd be all for it? How does knowing someone's married suddenly conjure up hardcore movies of their sex life in your head, man? What difference does it make to you if two people are married, gay or straight? If I read the NYT front page lead article correctly, Bush wants to ban gay marriage in order to protect the "sanctity" of straight marriage: President Bush said today he supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, declaring that such a measure was the only way to protect the status of marriage between man and woman, which he called "the most fundamental institution of civilization." How does banning gay marriage == protecting straight marriage? Anyone? Bueller? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The amendment will never pass. That said, I encourage the Administration to pursue this little slice of bigotry. Especially in an election year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 How does banning gay marriage == protecting straight marriage? Anyone? Bueller? Straight marriage will look bad if the gay marriages outlast them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 How does banning gay marriage == protecting straight marriage? Anyone? Bueller? Straight marriage will look bad if the gay marriages outlast them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambled_legs Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 They probably will outlast straight marriages. Everything is ssssuper and fantassstic all the time!! How did the lisp come about anyways??? Is it a sign of femininity, cause I don't hear any females talking like this. I guess the only exception is that trailer park Canadian comedian who is funny as hell but way more of a man than a women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 How does banning gay marriage == protecting straight marriage? Anyone? Bueller? Straight marriage will look bad if the gay marriages outlast them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The other side of the triangulation coin is that fluffing up the gay marriage issue forces Dems to choose sides. While the Bush camp isn’t afraid of comin’ right out and saying they’re agin’ it, what will Kerry (or whoever) say? Dems have more votes to lose by taking a stand on either side of the gay marriage issue. In fact, I’d say they even have votes to lose by having a nominee waffling on it. It’s almost the perfect red herring for right now. The old, "divide and conquer", eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Didn't Dennis Rodman marry Carmen Electra? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonanon Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The old, "divide and conquer", eh? Just smart politics is all that is. But now I’m interested in hearing how one of "the most fundamental institution(s) of civilization" can come to be viewed as NOT a basic human right. “If you prick them, do they not breed”, just isn’t gonna cut it for much longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Erock, I don't think the R party will implode on this issue. Unfortunately there are many people in this country that agree with Bush on this issue. Some are in the Demo party too (though not many), and some (more) are in the traditional democrat voting block. More of course are already in the R party. The battle is now, and has always been, in the middle ground. Many of the middle grounders are salt of the earth type people that are family oriented (traditional family that is). Most of these people who aren't really in the Christian Right are still somewhat religious. Picture the lower middle class guy that works hard and is socially conservative, but is in a Union. He’s no liberal, but votes democrat, at least usually. This is the type of issue that pisses these people off and makes them either stay away from the ballot box or vote R as a protest vote. I now many people like this back in the Midwest and in the Southeast. This may become the wedge issue that pushes these people toward Bush, at least for this election. I’m an L, so I don’t care what gays do. If they want to get married, or enter into a civil union, I don’t care. I have no religion, but I can see the religious side. Marriage is ARGUABLY a religious institution. So make civil unions for ALL non-religious types that has the identical benefits as marriage. You can’t force a Church or Mosque to marry gays, or anyone not of their faith, so let me have a civil union. (just thinking out loud here). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Marriages are carried out in town halls and in Vegas drive-thrus all the time, so I'd hardly call it a purely religious institution anymore. Even if gay marriages are allowed by the states, a gay couple would still have to find a place to get married, and that place is less likely to be a church. Churches should still be free to refuse to marry gays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Who says you have to be gay? All that's being talked about is "same-sex" marriages. If two hetero guys are living together, and one wants to get onto the other's dental plan, they can get married. Then they can save on income taxes by transferring unused deductions back and forth, and it's easier to get bank loans, and so on, just like male-female married couples. How do we like the sound of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Who says you have to be gay? All that's being talked about is "same-sex" marriages. If two hetero guys are living together, and one wants to get onto the other's dental plan, they can get married. Then they can save on income taxes by transferring unused deductions back and forth, and it's easier to get bank loans, and so on, just like male-female married couples. How do we like the sound of that? if it walks like a duck . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 In my view, it's a HUMAN rights issue it is NOT a human rights issue, marriage is NOT a basic human right, any way you look at it if you want to stuff your schlong into some dudes colon, do it on your own time, in your own bedroom, and i dont want to know about it. dont expect the rest of society to celebrate your gayness or support your attmepts to subvert state law in the name of human rights. Lars, you made just as much sense when you posted as Metalhead_Mojo. People like you are wonderful because it's your type of zealotry that is rapidly tearing apart the politics of the right. Keep up the good fight man, you're changing a lot of minds, just not the ones you think you're changing. 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.