Originally posted by LionelHutz
The one on the receiving end. :)

Damn Lionel...you stole my line ;)

The whole marriage deal between man man, woman woman is against nature. What an adult does is there business as long as they are consenting. The Marriage was started to show a man and woman together, because man + woman is what makes the human life go on. It is kind of like an ancient reward for the man and woman doing the right thing. If gays want some type of lic. then get something that isn't allready taken, let us{man & woman} have our rights, MARRIAGE.

Originally posted by mad dog
The whole marriage deal between man man, woman woman is against nature. What an adult does is there business as long as they are consenting. The Marriage was started to show a man and woman together, because man + woman is what makes the human life go on. It is kind of like an ancient reward for the man and woman doing the right thing. If gays want some type of lic. then get something that isn't allready taken, let us{man & woman} have our rights, MARRIAGE.

Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with nature, it is a man-made concept and a man-made institution. Marriage was started to prevent conflict among tribes, solidify alliances, extend dynasties and expand political and business interests. I'm not sure where you got the "ancient reward" idea or even what you mean by it, or who's doing the rewarding.

I'll be honest mad dog, I don't know what to say to the "you can't have a marriage license because I have one" argument.

For an excellent look at the history of marriage read the following On Marriage in recorded history an open letter to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

Note: This letter was written by a heterosexual Professor of History and Comparative Religion from Tufts University.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with nature, it is a man-made concept and a man-made institution.

I am sorry you miss understood my post man+ woman = baby

Marriage was started to prevent conflict among tribes, solidify alliances, extend dynasties and expand political and business interests.

Marriage is defined in the dictionary as being between man & woman, that is how it as been for a long time.

I'm not sure where you got the "ancient reward" idea or even what you mean by it, or who's doing the rewarding.

Lets go back in time and read any book that talked about someone getting married. I will bet you they weren't talking about Joe and Bob.

I'll be honest mad dog, I don't know what to say to the "you can't have a marriage license because I have one" argument.

I said get a lic. just don't use marriage as the "word" Marriage= man + woman

For an excellent look at the history of marriage read the following On Marriage in recorded history an open letter to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

Note: This letter was written by a heterosexual Professor of History and Comparative Religion from Tufts University.

I could care less, like I said in other post I married my wife, man + woman, let us have our definition go get your own.

I don't want to turn this into a flame against gays, all I'm saying is certian words mean certian things. If I said I am going horse back ridding today would that mean I was sitting on a bull?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The meaning of morality depends wholly on the society you are brought up in and what time period you live in. If you think the idea of morality has remained unchanged for thousands of years you are sadly mistaken. Whose morality are you attempting to live under Trav?




what society do you live in pagan? the one of that guy in your avatar? I thought we lived in the amercan society. any mention of morality or society is assumed to be the one here, where we live, not la la land. I am attempting to live under the morality of this country, the same morality we have been living under that has seemed to dissapear overnight.

if marriage is such an antiquated idea why do you insist on using that word pagan? shouldnt you come up with a more modern term that better defines the new way of life in america?

Originally posted by mad dog
I am sorry you miss understood my post man+ woman = baby

We've discussed this before I think mad dog but I have to disagree with your math. man+woman = man+woman and nothing more. There is no requirement that marriage has to produce children.

Marriage is defined in the dictionary as being between man & woman, that is how it as been for a long time.

Look it up again mad dog, marriage can be the melding of any two things even ideas, so why not two men or two women. And again, that's not how it's been "for a long time".

Lets go back in time and read any book that talked about someone getting married. I will bet you they weren't talking about Joe and Bob.

Fine, while we are reading those books from the past, with all of the good ideas they have that should remain unchanged, let's pick up a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin and use it as our model for race relations.

I said get a lic. just don't use marriage as the "word" Marriage= man + woman

Why? If any two "things" can get married why not two men or two women?

I could care less, like I said in other post I married my wife, man + woman, let us have our definition go get your own.

Did you even read the letter I linked to?

I don't want to turn this into a flame against gays, all I'm saying is certian words mean certian things. If I said I am going horse back ridding today would that mean I was sitting on a bull?

The definition of "marriage" from Dictionary.com:

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

So while certain words mean certain things, most words in the English language have multiple meanings. No doubt this entry for marriage will have to be updated soon.

Originally posted by Travh20
if marriage is such an antiquated idea why do you insist on using that word pagan? shouldnt you come up with a more modern term that better defines the new way of life in america?

Because as I've said before, and the courts have agreed, calling gay marriage something else is an attempt to relegate the union to second-class status, and is a subtle form of discrimination.

Also Trav, I'm not the one who calls the institution antiquated, you are. People who argue against gay marriage often point out, erroneously, that it is an ancient tradition, unchanged for centuries. This is the only antiquated idea relating to marriage that I know of.

this all reminds me of when the Army decided they wanted to let all of thier soldiers wear a black beret as part of the unifrom. At the time the black beret was for Army Rangers only, as a mark of distinction. the rangers fought it, and lost. They decided to adopt the tan beret as the new mark of distinction. If the gays are going to get marriage at all costs then maybe we need a new term for ourselves, since marriage will no longer mean a damn thing in this country, much like the black beret means nothing in the US Army anymore, as it once did.

Mad Dog:

I see after all the discussions you are still insisting on preserving a word's definition. I just remembered something, maybe you can think upon it. The phrase, "riding a bus", used to mean that if you are a black person, you go and sit in the back. Now the phrase has changed its meaning. Earlier on, when I mentioned the change in slavery and repressed women right in the past, you said that "the definition of slavery didn't change, we just don't practice it anymore". Hmm, upon close investigation, the underlying meaning actually has changed. Specifically, from "[general definition of slavery]...that is an acceptable practice for well-to-do people" to "[general definition of slavery]...that is unacceptable today". The fact is, when something important changes, the definitions (especially underlying definitions, such as to whom "marriage" can apply to) of many words relating to it change as well. I hope you think about it and see that many words we use everyday has gone through definition changes.

Originally posted by Travh20
If the gays are going to get marriage at all costs then maybe we need a new term for ourselves, since marriage will no longer mean a damn thing in this country, much like the black beret means nothing in the US Army anymore, as it once did.
Marriage would still be between two people who love each other, Trav, that's what it would still be for if gays could get married. The true people who are diluting marriage's meaning are all those people getting divorced. Did you know the divorce rate is somewhere around 50%? And also look at all the marriage stunts in Hollywood: J-Lo and Ben, Britney Spears and that guy she knew in high school (whom she divorced a day later)...that's your true threat.

yes borg, becasue half of all marriages fail is reason enough to allow gay people to get married. And all gay marriages will last forever with not one divorce! marital bliss and perfect families, those gays will show us what a marriage really is damnit!!!!! wahtever.

Why do you care what people do in the privacy in their own lives. if two men or two women want to get married, how on earth does it effect you?

Originally posted by Travh20
yes borg, becasue half of all marriages fail is reason enough to allow gay people to get married. And all gay marriages will last forever with not one divorce! marital bliss and perfect families, those gays will show us what a marriage really is damnit!!!!! wahtever.
No, Trav, you misunderstand me (and ignore the other parts of my post). The threat divorce poses to marriage far outweighs that of a few guys getting married. Divorce is that which cheapens the meaning of marriage.

If two gay people want the legal status of marriage then good for them - it doesn't hurt anybody and in fact it is nobody elses business except theirs.

I don't see any valid argument to ban gay marriage - the arguments against it are just plain small minded crap. The exact same line of thought and same type of people that would have been saying interacial marriages were wrong 30 years ago.

Plain facts
- it has no impact on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage except the impact it has in the mind of an extremist
- it is purely a christian view of marality that homsexuality is wrong
- The government have no role in enforcing religious agenda's
- The constitution defends liberty

Live and let live - if those people want to get married then they should be left alone to live their life as they see fit. They pay their taxes just like everybody else and if they want the legal protection of marriage then nobody has the right to impose their view of morality upon them.

I love the self righteous people who feel they are entitled to call others beliefs small minded crap. adn I am also tired of the same arguments saying anyone against gay marriage is somehow against racial equality. stop trying to make the gays some sort of liberal martyr group, because they are not. it is not some epic civil rights struggle they are engaging in, and it never will be. sure it will be made to look like it, buts that just becasue the liberals wrap all of their issues in the civil rights shroud becasue it is impossible to argue agaisnt a civil rights issue. I am sick of it. its just another attempt to change the fabric of this country. I have said that we can all come to comprimise, call gay "marriage' something else, bu no, they have to use that word. its just a word right? thats what the gays always say, so why wont they pick a new word that has all the rights and responsibilties of a regular marriage? and as I have said, if the gays wont comprimise and insist on forcing their perverted way of life upon us, then we change our term for marriage and call it something else. some people have a strong belief in god, and if you like it or not, marriage is very sacred to them, and letting some sinners make a mockery of it is a slap in the face to them. this number of people far outnumbers the number of gays.

Trav - you are 100% entitled to your opinion and religious belief - they are very valid for you & that is your right.

But the main point is that the laws of this country are not based on religious belief, so although one can respect your views, one cannot extend that to mean that your personal views should be the rule by which others live. There are many other types of belief in this country & you would be reaching for the rifle if they tried to impose their belief upon your way of life. You should extend them the same courtesy - if gays want to get married - regardless of religious beliefs - they have a right to be married - there is no valid argument otherwise.

The only valid point is to disagree & to not like it, but thats all you can do.

Gays being married does not make a mockery of marriage. Marraige is a personal thing between 2 people. I don't see how some gay people being married impacts my marriage to my wife - it has zero impact.

Originally posted by Travh20
I love the self righteous people who feel they are entitled to call others beliefs small minded crap. adn I am also tired of the same arguments saying anyone against gay marriage is somehow against racial equality.

If you act small minded that's how people will treat you. Nobody said you were against racial equality, what he said was that you are using the same arguments that were used by those who were against racial equality.

stop trying to make the gays some sort of liberal martyr group, because they are not. it is not some epic civil rights struggle they are engaging in, and it never will be. sure it will be made to look like it, buts that just becasue the liberals wrap all of their issues in the civil rights shroud becasue it is impossible to argue agaisnt a civil rights issue. I am sick of it.

If it's not a civil right struggle how can it "be made" to look like it? So far you haven't been able to argue against it without invoking your private religious beliefs. If your sick, go see a doctor.

its just another attempt to change the fabric of this country. I have said that we can all come to comprimise, call gay "marriage' something else, bu no, they have to use that word. its just a word right? thats what the gays always say, so why wont they pick a new word that has all the rights and responsibilties of a regular marriage?

You're absolutely right, it is an attempt to change the fabric of this country, for the better. When you say "we" can compromise, you mean gays can compromise their rights to be other then second-class citizens. Sorry, no thanks...why don't you decide to be a second-class citizen instead? Just to repeat myself for the umpteeth time Trav, NO IT'S NOT JUST A WORD, IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO SUBTLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS. Now why, since it's been repeated by me so many times and affirmed by the courts, why can't you understand that simple concept?

and as I have said, if the gays wont comprimise and insist on forcing their perverted way of life upon us, then we change our term for marriage and call it something else.

Could you please explain to me how anyone is forcing their "perverted" way of life on you?

You have the right to refer to your marriage as anything you like, and to try and convince as many heterosexuals as you can to agree with you. Good luck.

some people have a strong belief in god, and if you like it or not, marriage is very sacred to them, and letting some sinners make a mockery of it is a slap in the face to them. this number of people far outnumbers the number of gays.

The problem isn't that you believe in God, or that you believe that your marriage is "sacred". The problem is that you believe that your marriage is more sacred than someone elses. The fact is Trav, you believe that your faith in God makes you better than people who do not share your faith. It's laughable. It's sad. Truth be told Trav, you are nothing but a religious bigot.

Trav - Vilepagan makes some very good points.

Personally i find gay people's behaviour a bit stomach turning, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be what they are. They are people just like you & I and being gay doesn't make them dirt or sub-human. What if one of your kids was gay - would you disown them??

There is a strong comparison to civil rights, not in the sense of the actual issue, but in the sense of the logic that was used to say that blacks marrying white people was wrong.

The fabric of the US should be constantly changing & change means some people will be upset as you are - but the bottom line is if you are not gay then the issue is not your issue, it's an issue that your religious beliefs drive you to hijack.

There is another religious belief that says do unto others as you would have done to you. There is a lot of religious teachings about acceptance. Forcing your beliefs on others does nothing good for anybody, it doesn't make you safer or happier or more deserving.

As I said, I respect your religious beliefs, but live those beliefs, step into their shoes for a moment and open your heart to some acceptance of others regardless of how much they may disgust you. Afterall they are people too.

Originally posted by DrewM
Trav - Vilepagan makes some very good points.

Personally i find gay people's behaviour a bit stomach turning, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be what they are. They are people just like you & I and being gay doesn't make them dirt or sub-human. What if one of your kids was gay - would you disown them??

I never said there was a problem with being gay. i dont care if someone is gay, thats their deal. I have no problem with the people, only the actions. I have know and gotten along with gay guys, we had no problems and got along becasue we were not talking about it all the time.

Originally posted by DrewM There is a strong comparison to civil rights, not in the sense of the actual issue, but in the sense of the logic that was used to say that blacks marrying white people was wrong. [/B]

so with the same logic polygomists can ask for the same thing, its just logic. maybe a little common sense is wahts need, and to see when a can of worms is about to blow open.



Originally posted by DrewM There is another religious belief that says do unto others as you would have done to you. There is a lot of religious teachings about acceptance. Forcing your beliefs on others does nothing good for anybody, it doesn't make you safer or happier or more deserving.[/B]

yes we wouldnt want anyone forcing their beliefs on anybody :rolleyes: I guess no one noticed the gays bludgeoning us over the head day and night with their issues, and pretty much calling us bigots and small minded if we dont go along with it.

Originally posted by DrewM As I said, I respect your religious beliefs, but live those beliefs, step into their shoes for a moment and open your heart to some acceptance of others regardless of how much they may disgust you. Afterall they are people too. [/B]

so do you feel the same about rapists and pedophiles? will you open your heart and accept them for what they are? do you not understand that people are not against gays soley for the reason to deny them their "rights"? you can not pressure someone into changing what they believe in with PC threats or insults.

Originally posted by Travh20

so do you feel the same about rapists and pedophiles? will you open your heart and accept them for what they are? do you not understand that people are not against gays soley for the reason to deny them their "rights"? you can not pressure someone into changing what they believe in with PC threats or insults.

When you equate being gay with being a rapist or a pedophile you confirm the idea that you are a small minded idiot. Believe what you want Trav, just don't expect anyone with a brain to agree with you.

they are all wrong Pagan, dont you understand that? I know in your world there are varying degrees of right and wrong, but in mine there is right, and there is wrong. there are no half wrongs. Being gay is just as wrong as raping a child. I know you expect all the softening up done by the left wing media and relentless barrage of civil rights lies to have weakend us or scared us into agreeing that some epic civil rights struggle is happpening, but it hasnt.

I cannot agree that being gay is the same as raping a child. I doubt anybody would agree with that.

Raping a child involves one person taking advantage of a minor in a vicious and cruel way for personal gratification. Being gay is 2 consenting adults chosing to live life they way they happen to be wired. Very different Trav.

You are entitled to your belief that being gay is wrong. Many people believe that same thing due to their religious convictions. That's ok, I can respect your views as valid for you.

What i don't fully understand is why you feel so threatened by gays being married. You've said that it attacks the fabric of our society and it degrades marraige and based on your child rape comparison it is clear exactly how you judge gay people to be. Why does it get to you so much?? Why not just focus on your own relationships instead of worrying about the relationships of thousands of people that you don't even know. It's easy to be judgemental in a general sense to a faceless group, but it's also cowardly to do so because it would take courage to understand them as actual people before reaching such a strong conclusion. Afterall - strong conclusions deserve strong research and investigation.

I do not feel beaten over the head by 'gay issues' - there are many groups, companies and individuals that have a message they feel strongly about & such information is beating us over the head every few seconds in this marketing filled world - but it doesn't impact my life - I listen to what I want to and filter out the rest. Gay people are not my focus in life and so I tend not to hear much at all about gay issues. Maybe you are reading the wrong magazines?

So long as they are not hurting somebody else - let them do what they want. If you have a big issue with them then the issue is purely one for you to deal with - not for them to change and satisfy your fears. It's you that has the issue Trav (whatever that issue may be), not the gay people that want to get married.

Do not try and insinuate that I am homosexual or a closet homosexual or a homophobe gay basher with your inuendo becasue I am neither. I never said that having sex with a member of the same sex as you was exactly the same as raping a child, I said that they were both wrong. the problem is you are pissed at me for imposing my vies on everyone else, while you do the same thing. you wont accept my view that wrong is wrong no matter how you spin it. you have to try and convince me that its ok for a guy to be gay even though I think it is wrong. to do this you try to make me feel like I am somehow behind the times or on a lower level of conscienceness then people who accept gay as normal. gay marriage is not teh civil rights issue it is made to be. it is not stoping anyone from living their lives. it is a briliant piece of political manipulation used to polarize the country by radical leftists who use unsuspectign gays as pawns in their attempt to disassemble the western way of life so they can re engineer their dream socialist utopia.

Trav - you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder.

Where did I say you were gay? - simmer down!

To quote you "Being gay is just as wrong as raping a child" - if that is not what you meant to say - then you should be careful what you say - because that statement is black & white.

I am not pissed at you at all, but you are right I do not accept your view of "whats wrong is wrong" - I accept that you believe it is wrong & I respect YOUR right to believe whatever you like.

Your views are your views - they are not absolute truth - we don't live in a world where truth is benchmarked against Trav's personal beliefs. Others don't agree with your views - that doesn't make them right or you wrong.

You keep saying 'no matter how you spin it..' - Trav - get off your high horse - you are not the last word on what is right.

You say homosexuality is wrong, maybe it is, maybe it isn't - lets leave that discovery for the pearly gates - until then get on with your life and quit worrying about what others do, especially when it has no impact on your life.

Most of the misery and conflict in this world is caused by people thinking they have a right to impose their set of beliefs on others.

When a gay marriage sets your house on fire, kills your dog or drains your bank account - then you have an issue worth fighting for, until then you have nothing but a superiority complex.

Originally posted by Travh20
they are all wrong Pagan, dont you understand that? I know in your world there are varying degrees of right and wrong, but in mine there is right, and there is wrong. there are no half wrongs. Being gay is just as wrong as raping a child.

And stealing a loaf of bread is just as wrong as mass murder :rolleyes:

In your world Trav there is right (you) and wrong (everyone else). If you believe that being gay is just as bad as raping a child, you need professional help.

Originally posted by Travh20
it is a briliant piece of political manipulation used to polarize the country by radical leftists who use unsuspectign gays as pawns in their attempt to disassemble the western way of life so they can re engineer their dream socialist utopia.

Well they sure duped me into believing that having equal rights to marriage would be a good thing...I'm so ashamed of my lapse of intellect I could just cry...:rolleyes:

Tell me Trav, what will be the downside of this "dream socialist utopia"? I presume that now that they've lured all of us unsuspecting gays into their leftist trap they are going to spring something unpleasant out of their socialist cloak to further disassemble "the western way of life"...whatever could their next nefarious move be...perhaps universal health care...*gasps in horror*... or even worse...college education for the poor...*wails in dismay* Our society could never survive such horrid developments as these

Since it's obvious you didn't come up with a complex phrase like "dream socialist utopia" on your own, I'm curious where you picked up this rather bizarre bit of propaganda.

Originally posted by DrewM

You say homosexuality is wrong, maybe it is, maybe it isn't - lets leave that discovery for the pearly gates - until then get on with your life and quit worrying about what others do, especially when it has no impact on your life.

............

When a gay marriage sets your house on fire, kills your dog or drains your bank account - then you have an issue worth fighting for, until then you have nothing but a superiority complex.

Okay, I have an issue with some of the things said here. Of course, I agree Travh is the worst kind of buffoon, a close-minded one that always thinks he's right.

However, with that said, I think you're wrong to suggest that people should reserve judgment and wait for God to settle it at the "pearly gates" (Nice catch phrase). By that logic, we should just leave murderers, rapists, and whatever-other-lovely-criminals-come-to-mind keep on doing what they're doing and depend on justice from the heavens. I think not: criminal behavior needs to be stopped ASAP so that innocent people won't suffer in the pre-mortem life that we know exists.

And not having an issue with something you think is criminal until YOU are actually victimized is selfish, based on the same reasoning noted above.

And if you can't think of an argument where homosexuality is harmful, I'll supply one. By accepting homosexuality as normal behavior, you'r creating a society where your children think it's okay to choose a lifestyle that causes them to become effectively impotent.

i stole this from my friend's livejournal, who stole it from another person's livejournal who stole it from someone else's livejournal...etc. anyway i thought it was appropriate for the topic.

12 Reasons Why Gay People Should Not Be Allowed To Get Married

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth
control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Originally posted by Leper

However, with that said, I think you're wrong to suggest that people should reserve judgment and wait for God to settle it at the "pearly gates" (Nice catch phrase). By that logic, we should just leave murderers, rapists, and whatever-other-lovely-criminals-come-to-mind keep on doing what they're doing and depend on justice from the heavens. I think not: criminal behavior needs to be stopped ASAP so that innocent people won't suffer in the pre-mortem life that we know exists.

One can say that murder, rape etc is wrong because it involves harm to another unwilling party. That's very different from homosexuality where nobody is hurt & gay marriage where again nobody is injured, exploited or taken advantage of.

You don't need to wait til the pearly gates for a sense that these things are wrong. On the other hand religious driven rights & wrongs that are merely conceptual in nature can not be known until that time. Rule of thumb - if somebody says something is true because the Bible says it is true, then yawn, smile and move on. You can never win with these people - its just a waste of time.

oh but we can win with you drew? I love how anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda is a close minded bafoon, but anyone who laughs off the beliefs on people who disagree with the gay agenda is an open minded humanitarian. they are both against what the other believes, but you all see fit to call anyone who opposes your point of view close minded bafoons and morons. its hypocrisy of the worst sort all disguised as some sort of civil rights struggle, becasue weknow the gays will surely perish from the earth if they are not allowed to use the word maiiriage in their lives.

Originally posted by Travh20
oh but we can win with you drew? I love how anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda is a close minded bafoon, but anyone who laughs off the beliefs on people who disagree with the gay agenda is an open minded humanitarian. they are both against what the other believes, but you all see fit to call anyone who opposes your point of view close minded bafoons and morons. its hypocrisy of the worst sort all disguised as some sort of civil rights struggle, becasue weknow the gays will surely perish from the earth if they are not allowed to use the word maiiriage in their lives.

Trav - re-read my posts - I already said that I respect what you believe - I have no problem with your beliefs - You can disagree with the Gay agenda (whatever the heck that is) all day long and I have no problem with that - that's your choice. You clearly know a lot more about Gay issues than I do - you know their agenda and so forth - whatever conclusions you reach is fine by me.

What I do have a problem with is you thinking that your beliefs give you the right to act as God and say what can and what cannot happen in this world. Having a viewpoint (eg homosexuality is wrong) is fine - but what gives you the right to extend your views to impact other peoples lives in a negative way?

The bottom line behind your views is religious belief - go to church on Sunday and pray for the sinners but don't dream that your christian beliefs give you the right to set rules of right & wrong for others. That's not how this country works. You use religious "truths" as the justification for discrimination - when in reality all religious "truths" are religious "ideas" and discrimination is not valid for any reason.

There are many gay living breathing human beings in this world and no matter what your view is about them - your views don't negate their rights to equal treatment under the law.

Drew, I have said all along that I dont want to deny them any rights, all I ask is that we come to a comprimise. Why do they have to use the word "marriage"? why cant they have something by a differnet name but with all the rights and reponsibilities that come with marriage? that is why I dont see it as a civil rights issue, because they are demanding a word. they refuse to comprimise. civil rights struggles were for more than words. If people are willing to give them equal rights but under a differnet name what is their argument?? I will tell you why, becase they want to force the issue. it is all about them proving a point. If you think it will stop here it wont, that is why there are so many people agaisnt gay "marriage". they have decided to make thier stand here. Why cant we come to a comprimise? they get all the rights they say they are being denied, and the christians get to keep what is sacred to them, that being marriage being between aman and a woman? And as I have said before, if the gays refuse to comprimise and insist on using the word "marriage" then it may be time for christians to change the name of their marriages to something else like civil unions. do you think the gays would be pissed if they weer allowed to marry and then everyone else changed the name of their marriages to civil unions? I would have to say yes.

Compromises are good & if the gay community was happy with that then problem solved. But, I doubt they would agree to that and I would be in agreement with them if they didn't want to accept that.

Why should they accept a 2nd class citizen classification to satisfy the fears of a christian group? What Trav, as a Christian do you feel is going to happen if they get equal treatment? You cannot use religious beliefs as any argument in this issue because there is a separation of church & state (for good reason).

You say it is about them proving a point. I agree, the point is that they have a constitutional right to equal treatment and their point is that no fundamental group is going to take that away from them. That is a good point in my book.

I simply fail to understand how gays using a specific word endangers you, your faith or anything else for that matter. I do see how your religious views if they won the day clearly endangers their constitutional rights. In this sense it is all about civil rights.

So if I was them, I would say - thanks for the compromise, but no thanks.

Of course if christians decide to use another word for marriage to prevent the sky falling in on them, then problem solved - but in that case they would be the ones adjusting & rightly so, because they are the ones with the real problem, not the gay people.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
[B]Mad Dog:

The phrase, "riding a bus", used to mean that if you are a black person, you go and sit in the back.

the phrase means just what it says, if some dumba** translates that to whites only then they are stupid.

Now the phrase has changed its meaning. Earlier on, when I mentioned the change in slavery and repressed women right in the past, you said that "the definition of slavery didn't change, we just don't practice it anymore". Hmm, upon close investigation, the underlying meaning actually has changed. Specifically, from "[general definition of slavery]...that is an acceptable practice for well-to-do people" to "[general definition of slavery]...that is unacceptable today". The fact is, when something important changes, the definitions (especially underlying definitions, such as to whom "marriage" can apply to) of many words relating to it change as well. I hope you think about it and see that many words we use everyday has gone through definition changes. [/QUOTE]

Well the way things are going {butchering of the english language} we might as well all speak ghetto gang rap spanish. Like I said going horse back ridding is just that, it's not going to a dog race.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
We've discussed this before I think mad dog but I have to disagree with your math. man+woman = man+woman and nothing more. There is no requirement that marriage has to produce children.

Man + woman is the only way to naturally get baby, so man +woman =baby. Man + man, or woman + woman = 0


Look it up again mad dog, marriage can be the melding of any two things even ideas, so why not two men or two women. And again, that's not how it's been "for a long time".

you are correct, two companies can marry but that is not what we are talking about here


Fine, while we are reading those books from the past, with all of the good ideas they have that should remain unchanged, let's pick up a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin and use it as our model for race relations.

that was stupid, I am not trying to start a hate war....are you?

Why? If any two "things" can get married why not two men or two women?

For over 200 years in this country we have thought of marriage as man+ woman, it's that simple.


The definition of "marriage" from Dictionary.com:

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

no need to go any futher then {1}, notice the word legal also???

So while certain words mean certain things, most words in the English language have multiple meanings. No doubt this entry for marriage will have to be updated soon.

Why can't you come up with your own word? afterall, gays are suppose to be creative :)

Originally posted by mad dog

that was stupid, I am not trying to start a hate war....are you?

Why can't you come up with your own word? afterall, gays are suppose to be creative :) To the first maddog... Everyone who has responded that homosexuals should be allowed to get married have continued to try to equate this with people of color and their battle for civil rights. It rings hollow to most people, but i guess they adhere to the credo that if a lie is told enough eventually it becomes truth.

Homosexuals do not want their own word. This is just another example of the minority in this country wanting to force their beliefs on the majority. They are breaking the law daily in San Fransisco. But as i said before, it seems like its ok for certain people to break whatever laws they see fit to break.

Havok;

What gets me is just because I am American does not give me the right to call myself the prez. If I were a member of a club example; "high ball snowmobilers" then another club would not be able to call themselfs the same thing. They would have respect{or atleast should have respect} for the one group and get themselfs a different club name.

Originally posted by Travh20
Drew, I have said all along that I dont want to deny them any rights, all I ask is that we come to a comprimise. Why do they have to use the word "marriage"? why cant they have something by a differnet name but with all the rights and reponsibilities that come with marriage? that is why I dont see it as a civil rights issue, because they are demanding a word. they refuse to comprimise. civil rights struggles were for more than words.

The compromise you want is for gays to compromise their rights in order to make you happy. Gays want to use the word marriage for the same reason everyone else does, because it means "more" than "civil union" or any other compromising term you want to come up with. Which is precisely why you and others who feel that "marriage is sacred" want to deny gays the use of the term. You want to know that your "marriage" is better than my "civil union", because deep down that's what you believe, and you want it to be codified into law. You may believe what you want, but under the law we must be made equal and that means a commonality of terminology, or their is not true equality.

It is a civil rights issue plain and simple. We're seeking "equal rights" under the law so by definition it's a civil rights issue, and the only reason you refuse to believe that is because you know that by attempting to deny lawful members of society equal rights and recognition, you are wrong.

You're absolutely right Trav, the struggle for civil rights is about more than words, it's about ideas. Ideas like equality under the law. Ideas that say that I don't have to compromise my civil rights to make you happy.

If people are willing to give them equal rights but under a differnet name what is their argument?? I will tell you why, becase they want to force the issue. it is all about them proving a point.

Yes Trav, we do want to force the issue and prove a point. The point is this: We have the right to equal treatment under the law, not because "people are willing to give us those rights", but because we are granted those rights under the Constituition of this country. That Constitution does not grant us "equal rights but under a different name", it grants us "equal rights".

I dont remember seeing anything about homosexuals getting married in the constitution. if you are going to take what the constitution says and interpret it to mean that 2 men can get maried, then what is stopping 3 or 4 men, or 2 men and a women from doing the same thing? they are all consenting, so why cant they? unitil I hear a good argument why 2 consenting men can get married but 3 or 4 cant, I wont buy it. because you can not argue for gay marriage and deny 4 or 5 people from getting married. what if a 40 year old man and a consenting 15 yearold girl want to get married? why cant you see that by allowng one group of deviants to get married that you HAVE to allow the rest, or are the gays going to deny others their constitutional rights after blasting everyone else for doing the same to them? I am sure polygimists can argue just as passionatly as gays for what they feel they deserve. so tell me drew and pagan, are you for polygimist marriage? and if not, how can you argue that gays deserve to get married while polygimists dont?

Originally posted by HaVoK
To the first maddog... Everyone who has responded that homosexuals should be allowed to get married have continued to try to equate this with people of color and their battle for civil rights. It rings hollow to most people, but i guess they adhere to the credo that if a lie is told enough eventually it becomes truth.

I think there are many similarities between the struggle for civil rights by "people of color" and gays, for example:

Both groups have been denied jobs.

Both groups have been denied housing.

Both groups have been subjected to harrassment, violence, and murder because of who they are.

Both groups have been denied equal rights, and the equal protection of the law.

Both groups have been denied the same rights to marriage and adoption at various times in our history.

Both groups have been described as "less than human" in various ways by the medical and legal communities at different points in our history.

The Bible has been used to justify discrimination against both groups.

This is just a partial list. There are differences between the two groups to be sure. Blacks in this country were held as slaves at one time, but gays were not. However, I'm old enough to remember a time in this country when it was illegal to be gay, and if you were identified as being gay you were subject to arrest and incarceration. I remember as child reading about police raids on gay bars where people were rounded up and jailed merely for congregating in a "gay" establishment. I don't recall any time in our history when people were arrested and charged with "being black".

So tell me...How is this not a civil rights issue, and how is it so different from the struggle by "people of color"?

I think one response is going to revolve around the issue of choice. Some people believe that being gay is a matter of choice. I do not share that belief for a number of reasons. I'm gay, and I know I never made a concious choice to be so. It is simply the way I am. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would choose to belong to a group that is subject to discrimination.

I have no scientific proof to back up my belief that it is not a matter of choice, but neither do the people who believe it is. I can say that I don't know any gay people who believe it's a choice, and I think that on this subject perhaps gay people have a better perspective on the question. I think that one of the reasons straight people want to believe it's a choice is so they can justify their feelings about gay people. Another reason is that for the most part their is no visible difference between gay people and straight people so logically it must be a matter of choice.

Homosexuals do not want their own word. This is just another example of the minority in this country wanting to force their beliefs on the majority. They are breaking the law daily in San Fransisco. But as i said before, it seems like its ok for certain people to break whatever laws they see fit to break.

The only "belief" I'm interested in forcing on you HaVok is the belief that gays deserve equal rights under the law. If that's a belief that is only held by the minority, then that needs to be changed. You are welcome to "believe" that we are wrong, perverted, going to hell, or abnormal all you want and you are perfectly within your rights to feel that way.

I'm not happy that people are put in the position of "breaking the law" in order to achieve equal rights, but they are not hurting anyone, no violence is involved, and if it leads to positive change I'm all for it. Blacks marched, sat in the front of the bus and at lunch counters to gain equal rights, and if some gay people have to get married in "violation" of the law, then that just means that the law needs to be changed. If unjust laws are broken to achieve justice and no one is hurt in the process, I don't have a problem with it.

Originally posted by Travh20
why cant you see that by allowng one group of deviants to get married that you HAVE to allow the rest, or are the gays going to deny others their constitutional rights after blasting everyone else for doing the same to them? I am sure polygimists can argue just as passionatly as gays for what they feel they deserve. so tell me drew and pagan, are you for polygimist marriage? and if not, how can you argue that gays deserve to get married while polygimists dont? You hit the nail on the head with this statement Travh, and now you will be attacked for it. You see, what homosexuals are trying to do is force the majority not to just accept them, but to also force us to stop thinking of their lifestyle as a deviant behavior.







And Vile...you have a better perspective of how the mind of a homosexual works. I have no arguement for that. However, not much of the human mind is known in the first place. I believe you when you say you havent made a choice to be gay. I believe you believe what you say. However, i believe that choice may have been a subconscious decisicion for whatever reason. Doesnt make you a bad person. Just makes you different than the norm. Ergo the term deviant. And as Travh has pointed out, there are many forms of deviant behavior. Pedophilia is one. Polygamy is another. Where is the line to be drawn? Only after homosexual marriages are allowed? I know you are going to say that the two examples i used are against the law, but as you pointed out in your own previous post, so was homosexuality at one time. Do you think polygamists are not paying close attention to the outcome of homosexual "civil rights issues"? Where does it end? How can it end?

so pagan, if unjust laws are broken to achieve justice does that mean that a mayor can start dealing drugs ou of the courthouse if he thinks drugs should be legal, or a mayor that thinks all guns should be legal can start handing out permits for concealed weapons or automatic weapons liscenses? the mayor of SF thinks gay marriage should be legal, and started handing out marriage liscenses. you see pagan, its all very noble and high road to say everyone should be equal, but when you scratch the surface there are to many problems created by allowing people to break the law and allowing gays to get married.

Originally posted by Travh20
I dont remember seeing anything about homosexuals getting married in the constitution.

There are a lot of rights that people routinely take for granted that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The right to privacy is one of them. The rights we have are based on the Constitution and are there largely because over the years the courts have interpreted the meaning of the Constitution to include a great many things that are not specifically said in the document itself. For example, we have a right to private gun ownership in this country because the courts have always maintained that this right is protected under the 2nd amendment which says:

"A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Now, the Constitution spoke about a militia, not private citizens keeping guns in their homes, but the courts have interpreted the document to mean that we have that right.

The following phrase appears at the beginning of the Constitution:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal"

The courts have consistently interpreted this to mean, that barring any "compelling interest", the government cannot deny a segment of society rights it grants to other citizens.

if you are going to take what the constitution says and interpret it to mean that 2 men can get maried, then what is stopping 3 or 4 men, or 2 men and a women from doing the same thing? they are all consenting, so why cant they? unitil I hear a good argument why 2 consenting men can get married but 3 or 4 cant, I wont buy it. because you can not argue for gay marriage and deny 4 or 5 people from getting married.

First of all, I'm not going to interpret the Constitution, the courts will and that's their job. The only thing barring polygamy is the law, and the courts have determined that for various reasons, the state does have an interest in limiting marriage to a contract between two individuals.

The fact is they are two completely seperate issues, and yes I can argue that it's wrong for the government to specify the gender of the people who are involved in a marriage contract, and perfectly acceptable for the government to limit the number of individuals that are bound by a single marriage contract. If you can't see the difference, you are confused.

what if a 40 year old man and a consenting 15 yearold girl want to get married?

As long as she has her parent's consent it's perfectly legal in some states. The problem here Trav, is that you look at marriage as "a sacred union in the eyes of God". The law looks at marriage as a legal contract. Since we have laws that say you have to be 18 (generally) in order to enter into a legal contract, 15 year olds are not allowed to marry without the consent of a parent or guardian.

why cant you see that by allowng one group of deviants to get married that you HAVE to allow the rest, or are the gays going to deny others their constitutional rights after blasting everyone else for doing the same to them? I am sure polygimists can argue just as passionatly as gays for what they feel they deserve. so tell me drew and pagan, are you for polygimist marriage? and if not, how can you argue that gays deserve to get married while polygimists dont?

I don't share your belief that the two groups are "deviants" or share similarities in any way. Your pathetic attempt to lump the two groups together to make the desire for equal rights by gays look radical, is laughable.

you didnt answer the question pagan, give me a good reason why 2 men can get married but nt 3 or 4 men. what you said was not an answer. the gays will never get far if they can not convince people why gay marriage is OK while polygiminsts marriage isnt. and saying polygiminsts marriage isnt Ok becasue it is against the law wont work, becasue gay marriage is against the law as well. it is not laughable to make the natural extension form one group of "consenting adults" getting married to a group of "consenting adults" getting married. you are so rapped up in you cause you refuse to see anything bt what you want to see.

another thing, if you want to say that the second ammendment only allows citizens to own guns by a courts interpetation of the word "militia" then I can argue agaisnt the so called "seperation of church and state" which appears no where in the constitutin by saying that the constitution say s"Congress" shall make no law establishing a religion. you really should stop throwing stuff out their that only hurts your argument or shows you to be a hypocrit. a judge plaing a monument with the 10 comandments on it was not ordered by congress.

anyway pagan, if you can convince me why gays should be allowed to get married and polygimists shouldnt, with out using the word "illegal", which seems to not mean anything anymore, i will agree with you

Originally posted by Travh20
you didnt answer the question pagan, give me a good reason why 2 men can get married but nt 3 or 4 men. what you said was not an answer. the gays will never get far if they can not convince people why gay marriage is OK while polygiminsts marriage isnt. and saying polygiminsts marriage isnt Ok becasue it is against the law wont work, becasue gay marriage is against the law as well. it is not laughable to make the natural extension form one group of "consenting adults" getting married to a group of "consenting adults" getting married. you are so rapped up in you cause you refuse to see anything bt what you want to see.

There are not that many people who try to equate polygamy and gay marriage because it isn't a very good comparison. This can be demonstated by the fact that when lawyers go to court and argue against gay marriage they don't bring polygamy into the argument. I don't understand why you refer to gay marriage as "a group of consenting adults" when clearly we're talking about two individuals getting married to each other, not a group. If you can't see the difference between two individuals getting married and a group of individuals getting married, then I can't help you.

I'm not a lawyer and have not read up on cases involving polygamy but I would be willing to bet the state has not sanctioned polygamist marriages be cause it would severely complicate issues of divorce, child custody, inheritance, division of property and so forth. There is also no doubt the old argument that "marriage has always been between one man and one woman" to overcome. To be honest I personally have nothing against polygamy, and if some idiot wants to have ten wives I think that's just fine. The plain truth is that polygamists have no political clout whatsoever, and the chances of them getting the law changed are minimal at present. Perhaps someday they will be able to convince the courts that their civil rights are being violated and the laws will be changed, but until that time comes they will have to endure living in a society that does not sanction their lifestyle. To say that if you give gays marriage rights you must give polygamists marriage rights may very well be correct from a moral standpoint, but as a practical matter that isn't how societal change takes place. Rights are won by degrees in our society, as evidenced by voting rights. First we allowed white men who owned property to vote, then all white men, then all men, then women got the vote and so on. As my father was fond of saying, "that may not be right, but that's the way it is".

another thing, if you want to say that the second ammendment only allows citizens to own guns by a courts interpetation of the word "militia" then I can argue agaisnt the so called "seperation of church and state" which appears no where in the constitutin by saying that the constitution say s"Congress" shall make no law establishing a religion. you really should stop throwing stuff out their that only hurts your argument or shows you to be a hypocrit.

To be honest Trav you aren't making any sense here at all. In both instances, gun ownership, and church/state seperation, these rights come from court interpretation of the Constitution, not direct references in the document itself. The point is that we have a lot of rights that derive from the courts interpretations of the Constitution that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution itself. How does that hurt my argument, or make me a hypocrite? The Costitution contains a presumption of equality for all citizens of this country, and I don't have to prove that I'm worthy of its protection. To deny me my rights the government must prove that it has a reason to deny those rights to me.

a judge plaing a monument with the 10 comandments on it was not ordered by congress.

Huh?

anyway pagan, if you can convince me why gays should be allowed to get married and polygimists shouldnt, with out using the word "illegal", which seems to not mean anything anymore, i will agree with you

Well Trav, in the above statement I didn't use the word "illegal" but I wasn't attempting to convince you that polygamists shouldn't get married either. The fact that some people are "breaking the law" in order to call attention to an injustice in no way invalidates their argument, nor does it make the injustice more just.

Originally posted by HaVoK
You hit the nail on the head with this statement Travh, and now you will be attacked for it. You see, what homosexuals are trying to do is force the majority not to just accept them, but to also force us to stop thinking of their lifestyle as a deviant behavior.


Wrong HaVok, I couldn't care less what you think of me, I only demand to be treated equally under the law. You can think all the negative thoughts you want.

And Vile...you have a better perspective of how the mind of a homosexual works. I have no arguement for that. However, not much of the human mind is known in the first place. I believe you when you say you havent made a choice to be gay. I believe you believe what you say. However, i believe that choice may have been a subconscious decisicion for whatever reason. Doesnt make you a bad person. Just makes you different than the norm. Ergo the term deviant. And as Travh has pointed out, there are many forms of deviant behavior. Pedophilia is one. Polygamy is another. Where is the line to be drawn? Only after homosexual marriages are allowed? I know you are going to say that the two examples i used are against the law, but as you pointed out in your own previous post, so was homosexuality at one time. Do you think polygamists are not paying close attention to the outcome of homosexual "civil rights issues"? Where does it end? How can it end?

Where is the line to be drawn? Come on Havok you can do better than that.

It has been said "my right to swing my fist ends at the other guys nose". That's where you draw the line. I've alrady posted my thoughts on the gay/polygamy comparison so I won't repeat them here.

As far as comparing gay marriage and pedophilia, it's difficult for me to believe that any intelligent thinking person could compare the two merely by saying they are both "deviations from the norm". That's like saying we should have the same punishment for shoplifting and rape, because they are both "crimes".

I guess I'm expecting that our justice system would use "common sense" in differentiating between two behaviors, one that hurts no one else and another that is horrific in the extreme. I honestly don't believe that you consider the comparison to be a valid one.

I agree that nature did not intend for gays. But for legal purposes, there is no reason that they should not be given the same rights as a married couple. Like when one is very sick in a hospital, the other should have the right to visit them.

ugababe, you seem to be afraid of other that are different from you. This is a primitive thought process which still lingers in some parts of the midwest and in the south (apparently in Georga too), but it is without cause or reason aside from 'it makes you unconfortable'. I am assuming that your friends and parents have similar beliefs, I would also not be surprized if you were christian which would add to your beliefs in anti-abortion and anti-gay issues.

To add to the polygiminsts marrage, yea, I suppose it should be legal too. I actually think that marrage is stupid and pointless on the legal scale.

OK, let me put it to you hard headed SOB's another way. gays have all the rights that I have, no more, no less. Gay men have the right to marry a woman, same as me. I do not have the right to marry another man, and niether do they. tell me where a gay man and i dont have the same rights?

Originally posted by Travh20
OK, let me put it to you hard headed SOB's another way. gays have all the rights that I have, no more, no less. Gay men have the right to marry a woman, same as me. I do not have the right to marry another man, and niether do they. tell me where a gay man and i dont have the same rights?

Gah, the exact same argument was used by people who didn't want to allow black people to marry white people.

It was argued in court that there was no violation of the fourteenth amendment simply because the laws regarding miscegenation were being applied to everyone. The Supreme Court rejected that ridiculous argument then and will undoubtedly reject it again if anyone is stupid enough to try it in a gay rights case.

We don't have the same rights because you are allowed to marry someone you love and I am not.

I'd rather be a hard-headed SOB, then a soft-headed one.

LOL, OK pagan again with the comparisons to an actual civil rights struggle. No one is saying you cant spend the rest of your life with the man you love, relax. lots of hetero couples never get maiired and have great lives together. this really is the bigget non issue to ever become a big issue. racial discrimination, exploitation and segregation threatned to tear the country apart. a war was fought over it. 2 guys getting to claim each other on their tax return isnt a momentous issue, sorry. If you want you can go and get married, the government doesnt have to recognize it though.

Originally posted by Travh20
If you want you can go and get married, the government doesnt have to recognize it though.
All right, then the government doesn't have to recognize yours either, then. Fair?

if you can convince me why gays should be allowed to get married and polygimists shouldnt, with out using the word "illegal", which seems to not mean anything anymore, i will agree with you

The reason polygimists probably shouldn't is, like Vilepagan said, because of custody, inheritence, and I would add tax issues. So Travh, now that we've given you a reason, you "agree with" us like you said you would...right? From a moral standpoint, can you tell me why polygimists should'nt be allowed to marry if they all consent? I'd think you would be in favor since marriage is all about reproduction....think of all the babies you could produce if you had 3 or 4 wives.


there are many forms of deviant behavior. Pedophilia is one. Polygamy is another. Where is the line to be drawn? Only after homosexual marriages are allowed? I know you are going to say that the two examples i used are against the law, but as you pointed out in your own previous post, so was homosexuality at one time.

Havok, its not just about these issues being illegal, its about why they are (or were) illegal. Pedophilia is illegal because it obviously harms an innocent person, while homosexuality does not. It was one time illegal only because people did not agree with it. Consenting adults should be able to do things that do not affect others...thats where you draw the line.

a man having sex with another man is immoral no matter how you spin it

Prove it Travh. What makes it immoral? And try to explain without brining up religion, I want to know why YOU think its immoral. Also, I noticed you only mentioned that its immoral between 2 men, buy you didn't mention 2 women...I bet your all in favor of that.

Originally posted by Travh20
LOL, OK pagan again with the comparisons to an actual civil rights struggle. No one is saying you cant spend the rest of your life with the man you love, relax. lots of hetero couples never get maiired and have great lives together. this really is the bigget non issue to ever become a big issue. racial discrimination, exploitation and segregation threatned to tear the country apart. a war was fought over it. 2 guys getting to claim each other on their tax return isnt a momentous issue, sorry. If you want you can go and get married, the government doesnt have to recognize it though.

The only reason it was compared to the civil rights struggle that blacks underwent, was because you tried to use the same ignorant bigoted argument that was used to try and deny people the right to marry people of a different race. Don't blame me if you can't come up with a real argument to support your position. If lots of hetero couples want to live together without getting married that's fine with me but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion we're having. The issue we're discussing is about government recognition of gay marriages.

Why is it still such a heavy issue? In many places this furor about the resistance of one segment of the population to another segments desire to be accepted as a bonded unit is redundant. If you are gay and want to get married go to Toronto. Or Amsterdam. It is unfortunate that it is not a widely accepted practice as of this moment, but it will change. Eventually it will be realized that legal rights of everyone should be honored even though not all may agree with them. Are there any other gender-based laws out there that we should be worried about? I mean being a woman the odds are good that in some places there are still laws cast over me by these same men dictating what we can or cannot do. . :rolleyes:

Another question about all the fuss over "if they get married it taints the sanctity of holy matrimony for all the rest of us....."

really now, since when is the "sacred temple" of harmonious matrimonial bliss an ideal that the majority of today's society prescibes to. Marriages nowadays are disposable legal business contracts that can be reneged at the drop of a hat, they are televised staged events, they are contests, they are scrapped and started over. Look at Elizabeth Taylor, look at Woody Allen! Look at that stupid-ass Britney! Seriously, I think people should be concerned about the quality of todays unions rather than who is marrying who, and whether they have an innie or an outie, or who wears the tux or the gown.

Good point about the general sancity of marriage and the real issues that christian well wishers should be focused on.

Lets just all be glad that this is not a theocracy - lets be glad that there is a separation between church & state. Lets be glad that the constitution was designed to protect the US from religious bigots who think "they know best"

Those strongly against gay marriage really do not have a single argument beyond a personal view that it's just wrong.

Fundamental Christians that think what they believe is absolute truth and can use to moralise to the rest of the US just make me laugh. :D

yes, it is only hte christians who think they are right about everything, whatever drew. the socialist liberals are rightup their in their self righteous arrogance and know it all attitude. remember, it is not the christians who insist on making this an issue.

Well, the President just called for an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. I hope that the finest document ever written enshrining freedom, will not be polluted with an amendment denying that freedom to one segment of our society.

The Constitution should not be used as a dictionary to define how things should be. It should be used for higher principles than this sort of garbage.

good lord. its as if this is the defining issue of our entire history. we shouldnt have to pollute the constitution with this worthless piece of trash ammendment, thats the sad thing. our country has gone so far left we now have to outlaw something that any 2 year old could see was wrong.

Originally posted by Travh20
yes, it is only hte christians who think they are right about everything, whatever drew. the socialist liberals are rightup their in their self righteous arrogance and know it all attitude. remember, it is not the christians who insist on making this an issue.

No Trav - the difference is the Christian bigots think they have the right to enforce their views on others. Yes of course all groups think they are right - you keep on saying that over & over (like it's not the most obvious point in the world :rolleyes: ) & miss the point.

Bush is now proposing an amendment to the constitution - that is an outrage. Where does Bush get off thinking he has any role in this issue? and the constitution is not his to play with to gain votes from the religious right.

Yes, how dare the president get involved in the nations affairs!!!WTF? you are right, it shouldnt be bush who has to get the damn ammendment, it should be the gays who want to change what marriage means. thy should be the ones to go through tthe whole proccess to get what they want, why should we have to make an ammendment to keep things the same as they have been? arent ammendment meant to change things? this whole thing is just ridiculous. if anyone sholdb be propsing ammendments it should be the ones who wnat to change everything

Trav - there is a separation of Church & State - why do you keep forgetting that??

For those against gay marriage it is 100% a religious issue.

So, Bush has no place to be mixing religion & state.

The thing that drives you crazy is that gays will be allowed to marry across the whole of the US before long. Why? because 2 people in a committed relationship no matter what their orientation have a right to equal protection.

Looks like you should spend your time to get out your dictionary to start figuring out your new name for marriage. Maybe it could be called 'an extremist union' or something like that.

Originally posted by Travh20
Yes, how dare the president get involved in the nations affairs!!!WTF? you are right, it shouldnt be bush who has to get the damn ammendment, it should be the gays who want to change what marriage means. thy should be the ones to go through tthe whole proccess to get what they want, why should we have to make an ammendment to keep things the same as they have been? arent ammendment meant to change things? this whole thing is just ridiculous. if anyone sholdb be propsing ammendments it should be the ones who wnat to change everything

I think the point is Trav, that it's not the Presidents job to amend the Constitution or even to suggest amendments. :rolleyes:

It's obvious from your post that you have little understanding of the Constitution or the governments role in amending it.

To suggest that gays should have to amend the Constitution in order to secure equal rights under the law is absurd.

the idea of having to ban such a stupid idea as two guys getting "married" is even more stupid. you cant make something what it isnt no matter how loud you scream. men can not marry men, women can not marry women, why is that so freaking hard to comprehend? if two people of the same sex are to join in a legal union, similar to a marriage, it would have to be called something else, as by allowing two people of the same sex to use the word marriage would change the very meaning of the word. I know that means nothing to you, as you will use the stupid second class citizen, slave reference as long as it holds water. Men and women are differennt, gays and heterosexuals are different, get used to it. gay unions should be unique to them. why is that so horrible? why is the ony time you people want any similarity to the hated christians is when you want to destroy one of their institutions? when you marry will you adopt other christian values as well?

why is the ony time you people want any similarity to the hated christians is when you want to destroy one of their institutions? when you marry will you adopt other christian values as well?

Since when is the idea of marriage a uniquely christian ideal?

Why do some people choose to wed in civil ceremonies, and not in a church, yet both are still recognized as perfectly legal?

Because you don't have to get married in a christian ceremony for it to be recognized as a legal union.............

Christians do not own the term marriage, so quit crying about it like your culture is the only one it pertains to......

Some Dakota Tribal wisdom to consider~~~~~

When astride a dead horse
The best strategy is to dismount.

Originally posted by Travh20
men can not marry men, women can not marry women, why is that so freaking hard to comprehend?

The reason they can't is because of the law. We will change the law. Why is that so freaking hard to comprehend?

if two people of the same sex are to join in a legal union, similar to a marriage, it would have to be called something else, as by allowing two people of the same sex to use the word marriage would change the very meaning of the word.

That's one of the beautiful things about words, their definitions are ever-changing.

I know that means nothing to you, as you will use the stupid second class citizen, slave reference as long as it holds water.

Yes that same stupid argument that was used by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachussetts in their gay marriage ruling and The U. S. Supreme Court in overturning the "seperate but equal" doctrine that enshrined discrimination against blacks...sheesh what a bunch of morons they were-*sarcasm*

Men and women are differennt, gays and heterosexuals are different, get used to it. gay unions should be unique to them. why is that so horrible? why is the ony time you people want any similarity to the hated christians is when you want to destroy one of their institutions? when you marry will you adopt other christian values as well?

I don't hate any christians Trav, I hate it when christians try to tell me I should live my life according to their religious beliefs. I don't want to destroy any christian institutions and I don't want to destroy marriage either, I just want the right to participate in it on an equal legal footing. I know creetwins already did a fine job of pointing out the idiocy of your last statement, but I have to ask...where did you ever get the notion that marriage was a christian institution?

fine, then change the law. but do it with a vote, not through the court. you wont do that though, becasue you know gay marriage would never survive a vote. and you well know judges dont write law. it s funny how all the left wing activism is don though liberal courts, not votes on ballots

Originally posted by Travh20
fine, then change the law. but do it with a vote, not through the court. you wont do that though, becasue you know gay marriage would never survive a vote. and you well know judges dont write law. it s funny how all the left wing activism is don though liberal courts, not votes on ballots

You make it sound like gay people have some control over how the law gets changed, or that gays can just demand that gay marriage be voted upon. The reason that we're seeing the court rulings that we have, is because gays are taking the states to court over unjust laws that are already on the books. That's how our system works. You shouldn't blame gays for availing themselves of the best remedy available to them under that system. It's funny how all the right-wing conservatives complain about activist judges, and liberal courts, just because they don't rule the way they want.

its funny how activist leftists an gays go to the courts instead of congress or the voters because they will rule for them!

Originally posted by Vilepagan

That's one of the beautiful things about words, their definitions are ever-changing.
Especially when you can bend them to fit your wants/desires, huh?

Originally posted by Travh20
its funny how activist leftists an gays go to the courts instead of congress or the voters because they will rule for them!

Trav, if you believe a law is wrong the way you challenge a law is to go to court.

Basic civics for Trav:

The legislative branch writes the laws.

The executive branch enforces the laws.

The judicial branch interprets the meaning of the laws.

So, if you feel that you are being discriminated against under existing laws, you seek redress in the COURTS, not in the legislature or from the President.

You can't CHOOSE to challenge a law in the legislature no matter how much you might like that to be true.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Especially when you can bend them to fit your wants/desires, huh?

Do you think that maintaining your definition of any word is worth denying someone else the right to marry who they choose?

I'm sorry HaVok but my right to equal rights is more important than your right to exclusive use of the word "marriage".

And for the record, I don't get to decide the definitions of words, and neither do you.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Do you think that maintaining your definition of any word is worth denying someone else the right to marry who they choose?

I'm sorry HaVok but my right to equal rights is more important than your right to exclusive use of the word "marriage".

And for the record, I don't get to decide the definitions of words, and neither do you. My definition? Since when is my last name Merriam or Webster?

And you are not sorry. Nor is any other homosexual. You will do whatever it takes to make homosexual marriages legal. They are proving that daily by breaking the law. So please do not give me any more hollow apologies.

You dont, but your powerful political allies, the ACLU, does.

Originally posted by Travh20:
a man having sex with another man is immoral no matter how you spin it

I'm still waiting for an explaination as to how its immoral. I want to know why you think so, not what the Bible says. I don't want to know why it is not the lifestyle for you, I want to know what makes it immoral for someone else to do it.

I've been hearing the arguement that "making gay marriage legal will force us to accept or endorse their relationship". Can someone explain this?

Millions of people have gotten married in my life and I don't remember having to accept or endorse any of them. There must be millions of marriages that aren't really legal becuase nobody I know endorsed them. When I got married, the only people that I needed to show acceptance was my family and wife's family.

Gay people are not asking for you to accept their marriage, they are asking for you to not prevent it. You can still disagree with their marriage or relationship all you want...you don't have to go to the wedding, send them a gift, or sign their marriage certificate as a witness...and you can still marry someone from the opposite sex.

The "acceptance" they are looking for is from the government who decided to get involved in the business of licensing marriages with which comes certain priviledges, so they need to allow those priviledges to others or get out of the business. But, this does not mean that any individuals need to accept it.

Gay people are not asking for you to accept their marriage, they are asking for you to not prevent it. You can still disagree with their marriage or relationship all you want...you don't have to go to the wedding, send them a gift, or sign their marriage certificate as a witness...and you can still marry someone from the opposite sex.

Excellent point.

Trav you have to admit that on balance you haven't really made any good argument why Gay marriages should be prevented. You've avoided the all out religious rant (which is the true logic behind you viewpont) because you well know that it would be shot down in flames, so instead you've made an illogical and extremely weak argument.

I'd say it's fair to say that you lost this one Trav - very much so.

Just to re-iterate. I do not think you are dumb for your views - they are based on your religious beliefs and I can respect that. I just think religious beliefs are best kept for prayers on Sunday and kept within the circle of people that derive meaning from them. When it spills over to politics then it's a sure fire loser - well beyond the line upon which this great country is based.

Bush has zero chance of any constitutional amendment - the hurdles are too high. It's all election year politics and really a disgrace that he jumps to that solution. I used to be a strong Bush supporter but day by day he just looks weaker and weaker.

the idea of having to ban such a stupid idea as two guys getting "married" is even more stupid. you cant make something what it isnt no matter how loud you scream. men can not marry men, women can not marry women, why is that so freaking hard to comprehend?


Methinks Trav doth protest too much;)




J/K................simmer:cool:

LOL, OK, I lost. Drew says I lost so its over. hell why didnt I think of that? I could have said the same thing 25 posts ago and been done with it! you have no idea why a constitutional ammendment is needed do you? you buy into ted keendys hysteria likea ll the rest. listen up, and listen good.

here is the reason behind a constitutional ammendment, this does not mean I am for it, it is just the real reason behind it. forget all the political gain stories and wild hypotheticals you hear, there are reasons it was proposed. in the constitution there is a line that says that all states must accept and acknowledge marriages from all other states. this was written at a time when marriage hd a clear meaning. now that there is an attempt to redefine the word, not all people may agree with the new meaning, which is clearly happening. as of now, if one state legalizes gay marriage, such as MAss or CA, all other states would be required, by law, to accept and acknowledge these gay marriages. there are 38 states with laws agaisnt gay marriage. in one stroke 3 judges on the massachusetts supreme court could override the laws of 38 other states. it is not right. the new ammendment would say that states do not have to recognize another states marriage, thus keeping any states law agaisnt gay maiiriage intact. individual states would still be allowed to allow gay marriage, but they would not be able to force their views on any other state. this would prevent a few judges or mayors from forcing their beliefs on the entire country. I already know that you all believe taht gay marriage is a god given right that should be accepted and celbrated by all, but it isnt. there are far more americans against it than for it. dont let the fact that there are more people on thsi board for it that against it fool you into thinking it is some done deal.

I agree that many are against it but it's not overwhelming - a poll I saw on CNN last night was something like 55% against, 45% for.

I bet of the 55% against - 90% of those are just against it without much thought & only about 10% are hardcore "the world will end as we know it, society will crumble, run for the hills blah blah" if this happens.

Clearly issues exist state - state, but it's an abuse of the constitution to impose a ban. Realistically - there is 0% chance such an amendment would be made.

Society has been on a trend of liberalisation for many years. Why? - because people are becoming more educated and more accepting. Religious bigotry is becoming more and more diminished as people break out of the brainwashing. Of course there will always be a radical group ready to carry banners at public events saying "Fear God" - we all know these people are crackpots - it's these people and their close cousins that are the real issue to be solved (If the catholic church is any yardstick - then half of them are child abusing homosexuals anyway)

Well Trav, in honor of my 400th post let me congratulate you on making a fine argument in your last post. Honestly I think it's the most rational and coherent argument I've ever seen you post on any subject. Except for that part about Ted Kennedy's hysteria, I didn't get that at all.

That being said, while I agree with most of what you posted I would beg to differ on a few points. I think an amendment to the Constitution will not pass. While a majority of people regularly poll as being against gay marriage there is also a consistent majority that is against amending the Constitution. The bill of amendment will likely not get through congress this year, and since at least one State (Mass.) appears to be on the brink of legalizing gay marriages the crisis you predict involving the "full faith and credit clause"(Article IV Sec. 1 of the Constitution) will occur long before the amendment can be made into law. This will present a problem in that even if the amendment were to be subsequently ratified, you would have people who were already married and the government is enjoined from creating ex post facto laws.

I believe what will happen is this...some couple will go to Massachusetts, get married, and then return home to a state which has an existing law banning gay marriage. This law will then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will likely be overturned. At which point all State laws banning gay marriage will be declared unconstitutional. This will take some time as well, but I believe it will happen faster than an amendment can be enacted.

thak you pagan. I have never said though that the ammendment will pass, and I can really igve a rats ass either way.

Drew, what is you problem with religion? why is all religion a bunch of pig headed biggots in your mind? there are leftists who are jsut as commited to their causes as one would be to a religion, and they base their belief in FAITH more than fact. tehy believe the wild conspiracy theories and tall tales. their devil is capitalism and conservatives. if you dont believe me, there are a few on this board. I myself am not religious in the sense you speak of. I believe in god and jesus, but I would be considered a good christian by any sense of the imagination. I do not go to church every sunday, nor pay my 10%. and unless you are prepareed to say that muslims are mostly murderous zeleot murderers of women and children, then I would suggest you take back that crack abou catholic priests. I have always hated the people who say becasue some priests molested children, that all of catholiscism is child molestors. at the same time the hypocrits bite off the heads of anyone who says islam is a violent religion, even though almost all terrorists arre muslims. they say "you cnat make generalizations!" and their greatest line of all time "they are not all like that" are you one of those drew?

Originally posted by Travh20
they say "you cnat make generalizations!" and their greatest line of all time "they are not all like that" are you one of those drew? Judging from some of his comments of late, it certainly appears that way.

OK, now I'm confused about how a marriage license issued in one state will be treated if that couple moves to another state. Everyone always said that every state must recognize another states marriages. However, today I heard Bill O'reilly say two seperate times that the "Defense of Marriage Act" says that a state does not have to recognize a marriage from another state. He said "if a gay couple gets married in Massachusettes (if it becomes legal) and then moves to Ohio, then Ohio does not have to recognize it because their state law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

I'm not an expert on these issues, but I usually trust that Bill O'rielly knows his stuff. Can someone clear this up?

Also, I'm still waiting for Travh to answer why sex between two men (or 2 women) is immoral.

I've never actually seen the defense of marriage act (I didn't even know it existed until recently), so I can't say for sure. But laws enacted by Congress can't trump the Constitution. So whatever the defense of marriage act says, the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution would win out.

I think the reasonable argument Ohio would make if a gay couple from California arrived with proof that they're married would be to point out that the marriage isn't legal under the California constitution and therefore it doesn't have to (and shouldn't) recognize an illegally obtained marriage.

Trav - I agree with you about the conspiracy theory leftists - they are worse than hardcore religious nuts in my book.

Look, I don't lump you in with the religious nutcases & my comments about them were generalizations. You may have a view about gay marriage but I doubt you'll be in the streets protesting. You have a view and I respect that view if I don't happen to agree with it.

Originally posted by dnamertz
OK, now I'm confused about how a marriage license issued in one state will be treated if that couple moves to another state. Everyone always said that every state must recognize another states marriages.

This is somewhat off topic, but did you know that one state does not have to recognize anothers driver lic. Back in the early 90's they came up with the CDL{fed. drivers lic.} for truck drivers because of all the lic. problems. So just because one state allows one thing to happen does not mean another will.

I have an answer to the people who insist that this gay marriage thing is like the struggle the blacks went through for civil rights. it is a slap in the face to the actual civil rights movement for gays to try and walk side by side with them in their "great struggle" hre is why the 2 can not be compared, and anyone who hears an attempt to put the two things together should ignore it.

in the actual civil rights struggle by blacks, they really were discriminated against. from the second they were born to the day they died. black children as well as adults, all blacks were equally discriminated agaisnt. the current crop of wanna be civil rights fighters are not discriminated against at all except for once, the time they want to break the law. they are not discriminated against as children, or any other time, except when they want to break the law by getting married. I really wish that people would stop trying use the civil rights struggle by blacks as some sort of justification for the gay marriage issue. teh 2 are totally different. Gays are ot discriminated against except for the one day they try and get a marriage liscence. not the day before, not the day after. blacks were discriminated agaisnt from the day they were born to the day they died. I am not saying that the gays dont feel discriminated against, as its obvious they do, but the level of their suffering and anguish is over blown, to say the least.

Gays are ot discriminated against except for the one day they try and get a marriage liscence.
I wonder what Matthew Shepherd would say about that....




. I am not saying that the gays dont feel discriminated against, as its obvious they do, but the level of their suffering and anguish is over blown, to say the least.

I wonder what his parents would say to that..............

Originally posted by Travh20
I have an answer to the people who insist that this gay marriage thing is like the struggle the blacks went through for civil rights. it is a slap in the face to the actual civil rights movement for gays to try and walk side by side with them in their "great struggle" hre is why the 2 can not be compared, and anyone who hears an attempt to put the two things together should ignore it.

in the actual civil rights struggle by blacks, they really were discriminated against. from the second they were born to the day they died. black children as well as adults, all blacks were equally discriminated agaisnt. the current crop of wanna be civil rights fighters are not discriminated against at all except for once, the time they want to break the law. they are not discriminated against as children, or any other time, except when they want to break the law by getting married. I really wish that people would stop trying use the civil rights struggle by blacks as some sort of justification for the gay marriage issue. teh 2 are totally different. Gays are ot discriminated against except for the one day they try and get a marriage liscence. not the day before, not the day after. blacks were discriminated agaisnt from the day they were born to the day they died. I am not saying that the gays dont feel discriminated against, as its obvious they do, but the level of their suffering and anguish is over blown, to say the least.

I am overwhelmed by the colossal ignorance that this statement displays.

In many States:

Gays are routinely denied housing.

Gays are fired from jobs or refused employment.

Gays are prohibited from adopting children or have their custodial or visitation rights terminated.

Gays are not allowed to inherit property from a deceased partner.

Gays are denied health benefits, and are denied hospital visitation priviledges.

Gays are subjected to intimidation, violence, and murder.

One last example Trav, when you were in the military, did gays have the same rights as you?

The fact is, the struggle for civil rights by gays has many parallells with the struggle for civil rights by blacks. While this is not a source of pride for gay people, it should be a source of shame for the citizens of this country who try to deny the truth.

Coretta Scott King, the wife of Martin Luther King Jr., has this to say about the struggle for civil rights by gay people:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people,"

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood,"

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy,"

"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

"Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

But hey, what does she know about the struggle for civil rights?

:rolleyes:

enough with the gay martyr. In california 2 gay men kidnapped, raped and murdered a young boy, does taht mean that gays are all pedophiles and killers who target young boys? how do you the parents of the young boy killed by the gay couple feel about their right to marry? actually, you probably dont believe that gays are capable of violence, so you probably think I made it all up anyway.

One gay man being killed by straight men does not mean that all gays are discriminated against everyday of their lives. liberals always try and bring up a topic they feel can not be argued agaisnt, like no one can criticize kerrys voting record becasue he was in vietnam, and to criticize his senate record is questioning his patriotism and sevice in vietnam. or the gays use the civil rights movement of the 60's , because tehy feel it can not be criticized, or people bring up Sheppard, becasue who would be callous enogh to argue with a mans murder? it is sick and wrong to use such things to prop up your weak arguments.

Originally posted by creetwins
I wonder what Matthew Shepherd would say about that....

I wonder what his parents would say to that.............. Yes, it is a horrible thing those pieces of shit redneck assholes did to that poor boy. He didnt deserve it and i hope the criminals never get out of jail. That said, to compare all the suffering the entire black race suffered from merely having a different skin color to homosexuals not getting their desire to get married is idiotic at best, IMO.

Another thing, im sure you dont want to really compare civil right atrocities between blacks and homosexuals do you? I mean, lynching is not on the same level as denial of marriage licenses is it? Or take it one step further...do you want to compare civil right atrocities against the american indian and denial of homosexual marriage licenses? That arguement rings hollow.

There is a difference between a couple of drugged up, alchoholic rednecks getting together and committing a hate crime and an entire generation of people mistreating and denying civil rights to another group simply because of their skin color.

Vile, this is what i meant when i posted that comparing the civil rights stuggle between african americans and homosexuals was laughable. I never think the murder of an innocent person is funny. No matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever.

pagan, I have been denied housing, I have been subject to intimidation and violence, I have been fired from a job AND denied employment, does that mean I am gay? As far as gays in my military unit, I was not aware of any, bu we had our suspicions of a few guys, and discriminated against the heavily. (JK)

as far as correta scott king goes, the moment she decided to charge people to use MLK's "I have a dream" speech she showed everyone who she really is. who ever heard of charging people for the right to speak of, print or examine a historical speech? What if the kennedy family copyrighted the sayign "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" it is really sad.

Or take it one step further...do you want to compare civil right atrocities against the american indian and denial of homosexual marriage licenses?

Now you are getting my angle......where do you think my compassion for anyone discriminated against comes from?

Originally posted by creetwins
Now you are getting my angle......where do you think my compassion for anyone discriminated against comes from? But what im trying to say is that , to me, there is no comparison. American indians were slaughtered as if they were cattle. There is no way to make amends for that.

Homosexuals of today are being asked to not call their unions marriage. I have a hard time finding a correlation. If you are saying that ALL discrimination is the same as what happened to the american indian, then i truly do not understand that. There are levels of discrimination in this country. And every single one of us in this country has been discriminated against at one time or another. It is human nature. And you will not see it end in this lifetime. However unfair a statement that may seem to some of you.

Originally posted by Travh20
pagan, I have been denied housing, I have been subject to intimidation and violence, I have been fired from a job AND denied employment, does that mean I am gay?

No it doesn't mean you are gay Trav, but if you were denied these things because you WERE gay, it would mean you were unfairly discriminated against.

As far as gays in my military unit, I was not aware of any, bu we had our suspicions of a few guys, and discriminated against the heavily. (JK)

You didn't even come close to answering the question Trav. The question wasn't whether there were gay guys in your unit (and there probably were). the question was:

"when you were in the military, did gays have the same rights as you?"

as far as correta scott king goes, the moment she decided to charge people to use MLK's "I have a dream" speech she showed everyone who she really is. who ever heard of charging people for the right to speak of, print or examine a historical speech? What if the kennedy family copyrighted the sayign "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" it is really sad.

First of all, your opinion of her character is in no way relevant to the question we are discussing. Secondly, if she indeed holds the copyright to the "I have a dream " speech she is well within her rights to charge for its usage. When the copyright expires, the speech will then be in the public domain, and then it will be a "historical" document free for everyone to use as they see fit.

In the examples that I gave in my previous post, all these forms of discrimination, were and are, experienced by gays and "people of color" in this country. Given that FACT, how can you say there is no similarity between the struggles for civil rights by these two groups?

pagan, white people are experienceing all those things you say, jobs housing violence agaisnt them. its not just the poor gays who dontget everything handed to them. just becasue you dont get what you wnat doesnt mean everyones out to get you.

as far as gay tights int hemilitary, from what I understood, there are not even supposed to be gays in themilitary, I suppose after you redefine marriage, you will go after the military next right? gotta break down those doors. ever stop to think that instead of mearly breaking down doors you are tearing down the very walls that hold this house up?

While there are certainly differences between gay rights & civil rights - there are certainly many similarities.

Whether you like or dislike gays, they are a reality - there are millions upon millions of homosexuals. Yes they are a minority - but they exist.

As people they deserve equal rights, but because they are a minority - they do receive discrimination in many forms. Many people inherently believe they are perverted freaks (remember Trav several pages back you said homosexuality is the same level of wrong as raping a child) - this mindset alone creates a lot of discrimination.

They are discriminated against as a group, they have a right to equal rights. Therefore there are many similarities between Gay issues and civil rights for blacks. Yes - they are different, but don't dismiss the very obvious similarities.

And as for tearing down the walls that hold up the house. If the house is crooked then the walls need to come down and be rebuilt.

If you are saying that ALL discrimination is the same as what happened to the american indian, then i truly do not understand that. There are levels of discrimination in this country.

I am not saying they are identical.....