If the state participates in marriage, then marriage cannot exclude. Cannot create separate classes of people.

The fundies can go on believing their marriage is blessed by holy powers, but the state has to recognize all marriages, or it has to recognize none of them.

One advantage to having Obama in the WH is that, unlike Bush, when public opinion swings to favor gay marriage Obama's opinion will swing with it.

friendinpa: One advantage to having Obama in the WH is that, unlike Bush, when public opinion swings to favor gay marriage Obama's opinion will swing with it.

Doubtful. Obama is for civil unions (same legal crap as a marriage without all the religious connotation).

However, you are correct in a sense... Obama definitely serves the people of the United States. Bush never did... he served a small sect of the population (mostly big business, oil companies, and really rich folks).

friendinpa: One advantage to having Obama in the WH is that, unlike Bush, when public opinion swings to favor gay marriage Obama's opinion will swing with it.

You nailed it.

I oppose marriage in general. It inevitably leads to children, and we know what ingrateful little bastards THEY are.

Marcus Aurelius: I oppose marriage in general. It inevitably leads to children, and we know what ingrateful little bastards THEY are.

No you see babies come from having sex which does not occur in a marriage.

Didn't a majority of Americans oppose emancipation for slaves? Or the right of women to vote? Since when does mob rule override the constitution? Wasn't that document drafted to subordinate mob rule to its principles?

Marcus Aurelius: I oppose marriage in general. It inevitably leads to children, and we know what ingrateful little bastards THEY are.

Gay marriage doesn't lead to children, if I recall my high school biology correctly.

EvilEgg

Gay marriage doesn't lead to children, if I recall my high school biology correctly

I oppose all marriage equally. That's only fair.

JohnnyC: Doubtful. Obama is for civil unions (same legal crap as a marriage without all the religious connotation).


I don't get that. My marriage as no religious connotation. Even the ceremony had no religion in it. Las vegas wedding. We almost had it at the Star Trek Experience, but they wanted more than I thought it was worth.

It's still called a marriage.

JohnnyC

Doubtful. Obama is for civil unions (same legal crap as a marriage without all the religious connotation).

That is what he is for right now. He will swing which direction the polls tell him to. If you talk to gay true believers he is for GM, but being held down by the fundies in this country, and I would bet you anything that everyone in his church believes he is against GM, and is just giving civil unions lip service to appease the gay lobby.

However, you are correct in a sense... Obama definitely serves the people of the United States. Bush never did... he served a small sect of the population (mostly big business, oil companies, and really rich folks).

It is cute that you still believe that. Obama sucks up to a larger portion of the population than Bush did. But make no mistake, he serves just as small a group as Bush did.

Gwendolyn:
It's still called a marriage.

well sure. marriage is only picky when it comes to social class skin color what bits you have.

Gwendolyn: Marcus Aurelius: I oppose marriage in general. It inevitably leads to children, and we know what ingrateful little bastards THEY are.

No you see babies come from having sex which does not occur in a marriage.

Correct. It happens before, and CAUSES the marriage.

WaltzingMathilda: Didn't a majority of Americans oppose emancipation for slaves? Or the right of women to vote? Since when does mob rule override the constitution? Wasn't that document drafted to subordinate mob rule to its principles?

sufferage and a ban on slavery are in amendments to the US constitution.

so, get a gay marriage amendment to the constitution passed.

What the frak is up with this:



40% of people want gay sex to be illegal??

There shouldn't be federal marriages, period. Marriage is a religious institution, and has no place in our government.

GAT_00: There shouldn't be federal marriages, period

marriage law is state by state

DamnYankees: 40% of people want gay sex to be illegal??

Yeah. It's in the bible or whatever.

But forget that "Thou shall not kill" stuff, because they like to fry 'em down South.

DamnYankees: What the frak is up with this:



40% of people want gay sex to be illegal??

Gay sex, yes. Lesbian sex is a-okay.

DamnYankees: What the frak is up with this:



40% of people want gay sex to be illegal??

I think the only way this poll makes sense is that people misunderstand the word "relations". It sounds like "relationship", which makes people think of gay marriage. I mean, how can 69% of people be ok with gays in the military but only 56% believe gays should be allowed to have sex. That makes no sense.

WaltzingMathilda: Didn't a majority of Americans oppose emancipation for slaves? Or the right of women to vote?

Depends on what year you're talking about. By 1920 the answer to both those questions would be: No.

WaltzingMathilda: Since when does mob rule override the constitution?

When the mob changes the constitution, which is really easy to do when your state is dumb enough to permit it with a simple majority.

WaltzingMathilda: Wasn't that document drafted to subordinate mob rule to its principles?

You tell me.

albo: WaltzingMathilda: Didn't a majority of Americans oppose emancipation for slaves? Or the right of women to vote? Since when does mob rule override the constitution? Wasn't that document drafted to subordinate mob rule to its principles?

sufferage and a ban on slavery are in amendments to the US constitution.

so, get a gay marriage amendment to the constitution passed.

already did, it's called equal protection ... oh and the 14th amendment. there is no need to get amendments to specifically permit an action, just an amendment to specifically prohibit a government from restricting actions.

Skail: Gay sex, yes. Lesbian sex is a-okay.

I am pretty liberal and I don't oppose gay relationships, but something about two dudes kissing just makes my skin crawl. Intellectually I'm fine with it, just I don't want to see it. Not that I would want to make a law against it.

jbuist: Depends on what year you're talking about. By 1920 the answer to both those questions would be: No.

I don't think you really thought I meant 1920.

jbuist: When the mob changes the constitution, which is really easy to do when your state is dumb enough to permit it with a simple majority.

california actually requires constitutional revisions to be made with a constitutional convention - they should have ruled that this was a revision and that the simple majority vote was illegal in this case.

jbuist: You tell me.

yes it was. it takes more than a mob to amend the us constitution, it takes damn near everyone to be on board.

EvilEgg: Skail: Gay sex, yes. Lesbian sex is a-okay.

I am pretty liberal and I don't oppose gay relationships, but something about two dudes kissing just makes my skin crawl. Intellectually I'm fine with it, just I don't want to see it. Not that I would want to make a law against it.

i mean, i'd assume the same thing for your skin when watching a midget eat the box of a supremely obese woman who doesn't shave or bathe, but we don't try to prevent them from getting married.

EvilEgg: Skail: Gay sex, yes. Lesbian sex is a-okay.

I am pretty liberal and I don't oppose gay relationships, but something about two dudes kissing just makes my skin crawl. Intellectually I'm fine with it, just I don't want to see it. Not that I would want to make a law against it.

I watched gay porn a few times in my teenage years just to 'test' myself and see if I had any reaction. It was weird. My gut feeling was a mixture of mild disgust and intense apathy. It was just completely inert of anything sexual. I think if people were exposed to gay affection more often, there would be no disgust - its purely an artifact of our cultural puritanism.

WaltzingMathilda: i mean, i'd assume the same thing for your skin when watching a midget eat the box of a supremely obese woman who doesn't shave or bathe, but we don't try to prevent them from getting married.

Nah, that would make great TV. Well not the sex part but the midget married to the huge woman part.

WaltzingMathilda: already did, it's called equal protection ... oh and the 14th amendment.

not necessarily--this is why there are endless debates and court cases. there's a massive range of opinions on this.

that's why a specific amendment would be the way to go. otherwise, you have to depend upon a friendly court to see the 14th the way you see it

EvilEgg: I am pretty liberal and I don't oppose gay relationships, but something about two dudes kissing just makes my skin crawl. Intellectually I'm fine with it, just I don't want to see it. Not that I would want to make a law against it.

I know. At least with tranny porn you can pretend it's a dude and a chick.

/wait, what?

albo: that's why a specific amendment would be the way to go. otherwise, you have to depend upon a friendly court to see the 14th the way you see it

It's not an issue of "friendly". It's just the inevitable generational gap. We may have to wait a few years for the old traditionslists to just die off, but it's coming pretty soon.

albo: WaltzingMathilda: already did, it's called equal protection ... oh and the 14th amendment.

not necessarily--this is why there are endless debates and court cases. there's a massive range of opinions on this.

that's why a specific amendment would be the way to go. otherwise, you have to depend upon a friendly court to see the 14th the way you see it

i know, but given the results of both equal protection and 14th amendment jurisprudence, we shouldn't need further debate ... and the purpose of the constitution is the restrict the government from acting a certain way.

DamnYankees: We may have to wait a few years for the old traditionslists to just die off, but it's coming pretty soon

I agree. but then it would be even easier to pass an amendment and take it out of the courts for good.

HulkHands: DamnYankees: 40% of people want gay sex to be illegal??

Yeah. It's in the bible or whatever.

Gay sex is only in the unabridged Bible.

albo: DamnYankees: We may have to wait a few years for the old traditionslists to just die off, but it's coming pretty soon

I agree. but then it would be even easier to pass an amendment and take it out of the courts for good.

Passing an amendment is not remotely easy. Takes a very long time - years at least.

albo: WaltzingMathilda: Didn't a majority of Americans oppose emancipation for slaves? Or the right of women to vote? Since when does mob rule override the constitution? Wasn't that document drafted to subordinate mob rule to its principles?

sufferage and a ban on slavery are in amendments to the US constitution.

so, get a gay marriage amendment to the constitution passed.

It wouldn't in this country at this point in time. The thing is the government should not be in the business of marriage. Call it all civil unions and problem solved, giving everyone the same rights. Leave marriage to the various religions to administer.

lrosu79: Call it all civil unions and problem solved, giving everyone the same rights.

i have no problem with that.

but it doesn't solve the problem--it would lead to a massive political uproar, and no congressman or president would ever touch that.

The majority of Americans are idiots so it really doesn't matter if they oppose gay marriage. Forty years ago bi-racial marriage was considered a huge wrong. Now people don't even look twice. It will be the same with gay "marriage".

lrosu79: It wouldn't in this country at this point in time. The thing is the government should not be in the business of marriage. Call it all civil unions and problem solved, giving everyone the same rights. Leave marriage to the various religions to administer.

I don't get this view, marriage can be both a religious union and a civil union. Just changing the name for the civil part would be a waste of time. Yes, people tend to get married through both religion and government but just because they both happen at the same time doesn't mean there isn't a clear line separating them legally.

albo
lrosu79: Call it all civil unions and problem solved, giving everyone the same rights.

i have no problem with that.

but it doesn't solve the problem--it would lead to a massive political uproar, and no congressman or president would ever touch that.

How about if we actually separate the Church and State parts of what makes it a marriage?

Call the contract bit of it civil unions and make everyone who wants to be married get one.

Let individual churches decide who they will marry. This is already happening, believe me, it is not just gays that cannot be married in some Catholic churches.

Considering that with a $30 check and a SASE anyone can become a preacher I would say that pretty much any two people of any orientation could find someone to marry them and recognize their union.

If the Church of the FSM doesn't choose to recognize Catholic marriages then so be it, and vice versa. You still have protection under the law and your peers in your faith, or lack thereof believe in you and your union.

Generation_D: If the state participates in marriage, then marriage cannot exclude. Cannot create separate classes of people.

The fundies can go on believing their marriage is blessed by holy powers, but the state has to recognize all marriages, or it has to recognize none of them.

Agreed.

Gallup = fundie Christian

I don't understand why gheys insist on being included in the worst institutions. First they fought to be public school teachers, then to serve in the military, now they want to get married.

Let's just get this out of the way:

Majority doesn't rule.

How is the matter of marriage anybody's business except the two people getting married? I find theentire discussion about legalizing gay marriage comepletely stupid. It's got nothing to do with the rest of society. At all. Fark off and mind your own damn business.

I understand the negroes do hate the sodomites.

/Ducks

//Runs

So they're against states rights, then.

Why does the majority of America hate America?

Homosexuality is a learned behaviour. The instinct for sex involves thrusting and groping and kissing and so forth. If you get horny at the sight of a naked man, or if you get horny at the sight of a naked woman, it is only because you have been taught to make that association.

HulkHands: But forget that "Thou shall not kill" stuff, because they like to fry 'em down South.

Didn't you hear? All the old translations were wrong; it's not "Thou shalt not murder", so the death penalty and warmongering are OK.

Why there are people who still want the law to be based on a book that they can't even figure out how to translate a four-word sentence from, is another story.

DamnYankees: I watched gay porn a few times in my teenage years just to 'test' myself and see if I had any reaction. It was weird. My gut feeling was a mixture of mild disgust and intense apathy. It was just completely inert of anything sexual. I think if people were exposed to gay affection more often, there would be no disgust - its purely an artifact of our cultural puritanism.



well... did you cum or what?