View Full Version : Amendment Banning Gay Marriage?!?!?!
Pancho1188
02-27-2004, 11:32 AM
Due to the recent discussion regarding freedoms and rights (cigarettes), I feel that I should throw out a
\"personal freedoms\" approach to this subject to support a little-known document called the
Constitution... (those located outside the U.S. are free to make fun of the whole situation because it is, in
fact, ridiculous)
I don\'t know what Bush is thinking, but he is fighting a battle that he will ultimately lose
(unlike the war in Iraq, either like or unlike the war on terrorism). I saw a recent poll that 51% of the
population is for the amendment and the rest against or indifferent to it. Personally, I\'m just basing this on
the laws of our country. According to the laws of the U.S., you cannot restrict the freedoms of a person in such a
way. You can argue against cigarettes, alcohol, guns, etc. because they have the potential of harming others.
However, there is nothing about gay marriage that would potentially harm anyone. If you\'re afraid that it\'ll
make your kids homosexual or something, then you are misguided into thinking that you can somehow choose who
you\'re attracted to. I know I didn\'t wake up one day and say, \"Hey, I think I want to have sex with
women,\" so why on earth would I one day wake up and say, \"Hey, I think I want to have sex with men?\" The way
homosexuality is hated and insulted in many parts of this country, I know that no one on earth would \'choose\'
to go that path unless it was part of the fabric of their being.
The bottom line is that this proposed amendment
is unconstitutional. Even if Bush somehow got everyone in congress and every individual state to support this, the
Supreme Court should easily declare this unconstitutional because there is no way a country can support such an
amendment with no logical base but only a religiously moral issue.
Let\'s face it: the institution of marriage
in the U.S. is becoming a joke, anyway. Getting a divorce nowadays is as common as changing your job or moving.
Britney Spears and other stars got married and unmarried all within days. The former President frequently shamed
his marriage vows. To think that homosexual marriages would somehow destroy the sanctity of marriage is to ignore
that marriage itself is slowly but surely being destroyed by the people who are already legally allowed to
marry.
Who knows? Maybe it would even bring back the sanctity of marriage...
\"Marriage is a sacred
bond between a man and a woman...\"
I always thought marriage would be a sacred bond between myself and the
person I wanted to spend the rest of my life in love with...my case would be a woman, but who am I to prevent
someone else from living their dream with someone of the same sex?
I
think that is not for the federal government to decide, leave it to the states......it certainly has no place in the
constitution.
Pancho1188
02-27-2004, 11:42 AM
Very good point. I can\'t say anything about states banning it but provide my personal opinion.
However, any amendment would be unconstitutional IMHO.
`free country´....... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif in way this is kind of amusing I mean in some states they
actually still lock people up for having oral sex right /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Now
imagine two men get hitched and sometime later file for divorce. `My husband (??) has not fullfilled his marital
duties! For me this is a good reason to get divorced!´
`And why do you refuse to consummate your marriage Sir?´
I don´t want to get arrested, we live in Iowa!´ /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Sorry, couldn´t resist that one
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif but just as sad and idiotic the humour is in the above, Bush´s
attitude (and all the others) is even worse /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
franki
02-27-2004, 11:58 AM
I
am on the Conservatives side on this one for a change. I think gay marriages are not a good idea. Marriage has a
very long tradition and I don\'t think it was a good idea to change it like they did in some places.. Then again,
I don\'t really understand why ANYONE would want to get married..
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I have no clue if this should be in the US constitution or
not.. I will leave that up to you Americans. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
belgareth
02-27-2004, 12:41 PM
The amendment is an absurdity. It is clearly a moral and religous issue and in both cases outside the
government\'s proper area of authority.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I am on the Conservatives side on this one for a
change. I think gay marriages are not a good idea. Marriage has a very long tradition and I don\'t think it was a
good idea to change it like they did in some places.. Then again, I don\'t really understand why ANYONE would want
to get married.. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I have no clue if this should be in the US
constitution or not.. I will leave that up to you Americans. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
The constitution\'s the point, though, Franki. A main issue with
this is that certain powers are delegated to the federal govt, by the constitution, and the rest are left to the
states. Marriage laws are under state jurisdiction.
So, it is unconstitutional. It is an unwelcome and unlawful
encroachment by the feds into state and local affairs. Police state stuff.
Our founding fathers wanted a weak
federal govt. Based on our propensity to war promiscously, with our without the consent of the governed, I would say
that it could be weaker.
franki
02-27-2004, 12:44 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The constitution\'s the point, though,
Franki.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I know, I just wanted to post my 2 cents on the
topic of gay marriage though. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
belgareth
02-27-2004, 12:45 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Our founding fathers wanted a weak
federal govt. Based on our propensity to war promiscously, with our without the consent of the governed, I would say
that it could be weaker.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I\'ll certainly vote for you.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The amendment is an absurdity. It is clearly a
moral and religous issue and in both cases outside the government\'s proper area of authority.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Exactly
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The amendment is an absurdity. It is clearly a
moral and religous issue and in both cases outside the government\'s proper area of authority.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Exactly. Guess that is what happens when you make an ultra-religious
people in goverment.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The amendment is an absurdity. It is clearly a moral and religous issue and
in both cases outside the government\'s proper area of authority.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
Exactly. Guess that is what happens when you make an ultra-religious people in goverment.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Well, now Ah-nold is clamoring for an amendment to the
constitutional requirement that all U.S. presidential candidates be native born.
Now, granted.. that provision
was a contrivance to keep out Alex Hamilton, btu still......
belgareth
02-27-2004, 01:24 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The amendment is an absurdity. It is clearly a moral and religous issue and
in both cases outside the government\'s proper area of authority.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
Exactly. Guess that is what happens when you make an ultra-religious people in goverment.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Think witch burnings! It\'s not religous people, it\'s
zealots of any stripe. Truly religous people are kind and giving. Zealots use religion to cover their twisted
desires to posses, dominate and control others.
religion is what should be banned not love. Take away religion for a year or two, and nobody will miss it just
like a sh*t TV show or papers that spread lies
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
religion is what should be banned not love. Take
away religion for a year or two, and nobody will miss it just like a sh*t TV show or papers that spread lies
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
LOL. I agree with the second statement, though not the first.
what
you like crap TV shows /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Can I ask why on earth is this in the
Health section Pancho /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
franki
02-27-2004, 01:52 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
what you like crap TV shows
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
At least I
always like crappy tv shows. I heard they are starting a new series of Big Brother in a few days here in Germany..
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Elana
02-27-2004, 01:56 PM
Franki isn\'t gay but he did get felt up by a man today. He claims not to have liked it.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
franki
02-27-2004, 02:01 PM
I
Hated it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
Elana
02-27-2004, 02:04 PM
He should have been more gental with your giant
Mtnjim
02-27-2004, 02:08 PM
If you are against abortion, don\'t get one!
If you are against gay marrage, don\'t marry one!
Unfortunately,
there are some people who think everyone should live by their beliefs, and no other!
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
religion is what should be banned not love. Take away religion for a year or
two, and nobody will miss it just like a sh*t TV show or papers that spread lies
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
LOL. I agree with the second statement, though not the first.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
I dunno... Mel\'s new piece is certainly stirring up a lot of Christian fundie frenzy.
Elana
02-27-2004, 02:10 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
If you are against abortion, don\'t get one!
If
you are against gay marrage, don\'t marry one!
Unfortunately, there are some people who think everyone should
live by their beliefs, and no other!
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
What he said
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Pancho1188
02-27-2004, 02:12 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
what you like crap TV shows
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Can I ask why on earth is this in the Health section Pancho
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
That\'s a
very good question, CJ. I was making a statement that the very health of the U.S. is at risk if they start allowing
the federal government to make up whatever they want without any legal authority as Bel and others have
said.
Maybe they just oppose the potential tax breaks of filing jointly...
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif (even though there are a few problems as well)
Pancho1188
02-27-2004, 02:13 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
religion is
what should be banned not love. Take away religion for a year or two, and nobody will miss it just like a sh*t TV
show or papers that spread lies
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
LOL. I agree with the second
statement, though not the first.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I dunno... Mel\'s new piece
is certainly stirring up a lot of Christian fundie frenzy.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Nice.
You know me, I like shaking things up. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Let
them get married and then when they get divorced and have to start paying alimony and child support maybe they will
not think it is such a great idea. Who cares hetero couples live together w/o getting married. Whay can\'t gays
be happy with that as well. Marriage is a dying institution anyway.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Let them get married and then when they get
divorced and have to start paying alimony and child support maybe they will not think it is such a great idea. Who
cares hetero couples live together w/o getting married. Whay can\'t gays be happy with that as well. Marriage is
a dying institution anyway.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
It is all about wanting to have the
choice to determine on their own whether marriage is a good thing or not.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
religion is what should be banned not love.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Oh yes!!!!! So true.
Gossamer_2701
02-27-2004, 03:45 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Who cares hetero couples live together
w/o getting married.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Not true.... most states deem it a
\'common law marriage\' after living together as a couple from anywhere between 5-7 years.
But its the state
that governs the law... NOT the federal government, just as it should be.
There are some religious people on this board - at least I know of one - so I think we shouldn\'t keep trashing
it over and over out of respect for something very important to them, even if we don\'t agree.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Who cares hetero couples live together w/o getting married.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Not true.... most states deem it a \'common law marriage\' after living
together as a couple from anywhere between 5-7 years.
But its the state that governs the law... NOT the federal
government, just as it should be.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
yeah, ok. You kinda got me
there except no one stays together that long. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Mtnjim
02-27-2004, 03:57 PM
In California there are \"civil unions\". These can be between same sex couples (any age) of hetero couples (as
long as one partner is 62 ? 65? I forget--talk about age discrimination). In California there is no diference
between \"civil union\" and \"marriage\", they are equal. However in Federal eyes there are 1049 laws that are
rights recognized in \"marrage\" but not for \"civil unions\". These include taxes (fileing jointly) , Social
Security, and Medicare. I believe people are looking for \"marrage\" so as to not be discriminated against.
CptKipling
02-27-2004, 05:03 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
If you are against abortion, don\'t
get one!
If you are against gay marrage, don\'t marry one!
Unfortunately, there are some people who think
everyone should live by their beliefs, and no other!
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Can\'t
agree more (well, unless your talking about things that affect other people, like Pancho said).
There are a few
good things that have come from Religion (direcion, guidence, comfort, etc.), and I\'m saying that not being a
religious person myself. Marriage is another one of those good things.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Who cares hetero couples live together w/o getting married.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Not true.... most states deem it a \'common law marriage\' after living
together as a couple from anywhere between 5-7 years.
But its the state that governs the law... NOT the federal
government, just as it should be.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Only 13 states now have common
law marriage... one of them is NOT CA.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
In California there are \"civil unions\". These
can be between same sex couples (any age) of hetero couples (as long as one partner is 62 ? 65? I forget--talk about
age discrimination). In California there is no diference between \"civil union\" and \"marriage\", they are
equal. However in Federal eyes there are 1049 laws that are rights recognized in \"marrage\" but not for \"civil
unions\". These include taxes (fileing jointly) , Social Security, and Medicare. I believe people are looking for
\"marrage\" so as to not be discriminated against.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Yes.
Exactly. Also for the public acknowledgement of the committment.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
There are some religious people on this board - at
least I know of one - so I think we shouldn\'t keep trashing it over and over out of respect for something very
important to them, even if we don\'t agree.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Well, most of the
arguements against, on this board, are constitutional-- not religious.
I would concur with a constitutional
amendment that limited federal powers FURTHER. There is the amendment that outlawed slavery as an institution, of
course. But, not one that gave control of state rights and duties to the feds.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Let them get married and then when they get divorced and have to start paying
alimony and child support maybe they will not think it is such a great idea. Who cares hetero couples live together
w/o getting married. Whay can\'t gays be happy with that as well. Marriage is a dying institution anyway.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
It is all about wanting to have the choice to determine on their
own whether marriage is a good thing or not.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Also about
legalities, such as access to a spouse\'s health care insurance coverage.
Kari, You are thinking too hard. slow down and take a deep breath. There isn\'t that better?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Sexyredhead
02-28-2004, 05:10 AM
I don\'t support gay marriage. I believe marriage is a religious ceremony, and I believe my religion
does not condone homosexuality. Therefore I believe it would be against the \'law\' of my religion to marry
homosexuals.
However, I also do not support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Why? Because again, I
believe marriage is a religious ceremony, and I do not want the government regulating what I can do where or when in
my religion.
This does not mean I hate gay people. The doesn\'t even mean I won\'t talk to them or be
friends with gay people.
These are my beliefs and my opinions on this, and I refuse to argue about them. But
opinions were asked for, and I\'m giving mine. Flame away.
Elana
02-28-2004, 05:11 AM
good reply, SRH /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
belgareth
02-28-2004, 05:20 AM
SRH,
That\'s exactly the point. You have every right to your religous beliefs and the government
should never infringe on them. But not everybody has the same religous beliefs and the government should not
infringe on a person\'s belief that approves of gay marraige either.
I\'m not religous so from my
perspective, the whole thing seems a huge waste of time. Why are all these people so worried about something that is
none of their business? Don\'t they have more important things to do than fight about who can and cannot get
married?
Sexyredhead
02-28-2004, 05:41 AM
I realize that not everybody has the same beliefs I have. So if gay marriage comes to a vote, I would
vote against it, because a vote in favor would be a public sign of approval, IMO, and I do not. BUT, I\'m sure
someone who is in favor of it would vote for it.
There are a couple of things going on with this. One is that
many Christians are speaking out because if they don\'t speak out, it will be seen as approval. The same as if
they were voting for it. And this is the same thing many other groups do when they don\'t agree with something
going on. Also, many Christians feel they are being unfairly discriminated against because they have been quiet on
many things for so long, and they feel this is a time and place where they need to speak out.
Christians are being discriminated? They are the ones who go around dicriminating others and they´ve been doing
this for 2000 years now. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif Victorian times were the worst and we
can still feel the effects today. The church is just too hypocritical and criminal, as well as sexist for my
personal taste. It´s all about power and telling others what they cannot do. One of the worst things is that
Christianity consists of two groups who even fight and kill each other, so how am I meant to believe in such an
institution?
The ten commandments aren´t too bad especially some of them but beyond that it´s all nonsense imho
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Christians also say that you should love others, but when some
do it´s not okay because the love the ´wrong´ person. What a load of crap.
I don´t see the point of marriage
anyhow, it´s just a piece of paper but if people want to get hitched up, let them if it makes them happy. You don´t
have to go and do it yourself.
I don´t see the big deal, surely there´s more important issues to deal with and
things to do to improve...well everything I guess.
The
only that I don´t like about gay marriage is that even though when a guy tells you he´s married, you still can´t be
sure if he´s straight or not /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif This makes things
tougher and confusing /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
PS what if the law does
get changed, what will happend to the gay couples who are already married? Or couples from abroad go the US to live
or on holiday how will this affect their `status?´ Any ideas?
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
In California there are \"civil unions\". These
can be between same sex couples (any age) of hetero couples (as long as one partner is 62 ? 65? I forget--talk about
age discrimination). In California there is no diference between \"civil union\" and \"marriage\", they are
equal. However in Federal eyes there are 1049 laws that are rights recognized in \"marrage\" but not for \"civil
unions\". These include taxes (fileing jointly) , Social Security, and Medicare. I believe people are looking for
\"marrage\" so as to not be discriminated against.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
SRH:
I completely agree with you in the seperation between church and state.
However, the aforementioned post illustrates why under the CURRENT system, marriage goes beyond religion. Since
taxes and benefits are a very secular concern, marriage is no longer just a religious ritual but a form of financial
protection.
It is not like all of the people who are getting married, or even most of them for that matter,
are including your religion or any religion in the process.
The people want to grow old together knowing that
them and their loved one will enjoy all the benefits that you and your loved one will have.
Denying them this
is saying their commitment and love for each other is not as strong what a man and a woman can have. Even if you
feel that is true, considering the divorce rate, the commitment and love between heteros is not necessarily strong
in the case of marriages, considering the divorce rate of those marriages.
I am not going to inject my
personal opinions on whether marriage should or shouldn\'t be allowed for gays, other than what I previously said,
I believe it should be a state issue. I thougth Federalism was all based on giving states the right to choose most
of its laws. Since this isn\'t a black and white issue, why would the Federal Government be interfering with it?
Oh. That Bush guy, whose personal religious convictions make it a black and white issue.
Anyway, I just
wanted to re-shine the spotlight on the real issues at stake, because I think you are missing them.
I also
have a question for you.... If a gay couple went to a place of worship from your relgion and asked them if they
could go through the relgious ceremony for marriage, would/do they do it?
If they don\'t, then it would
seem like the ban you desire is already intact. If the marriage doesn\'t have your religion\'s stamp on it,
what is the problem?
I
think a big problem is that the people in the government are so reliously inclined, they have always used (or even
abused) it to improve their `image´ so people think Ah, he goes to church etc and talks of god, so he must be a
good person and thus worthy of my support.
Religion has no place in government affairs and how a country ought to
be run IMO but the united states really aren´t the only ones on this train.
Elana
02-28-2004, 06:29 AM
Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feelings get hurt when someone\'s religion is bashed.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feeling
get hurt when someone\'s religion is bashed. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Maybe we shouldn\'t. I said before (specifically for SRH) not to bash
religion so much. Complaining about bringing religion into politics is seperate entirely, however, and isn\'t
telling her that she shoudnt have the right to practice what she believes.
Elana
02-28-2004, 06:32 AM
OK....you guys can continue. I am out of here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
There are
much more fun topics going on. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
OK....you guys can continue. I am out of here.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
There are much more fun topics going on.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Don\'t be like
that.
Sexyredhead
02-28-2004, 06:41 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I completely agree with you in the
seperation between church and state. However, the aforementioned post illustrates why under the CURRENT system,
marriage goes beyond religion. Since taxes and benefits are a very secular concern, marriage is no longer just a
religious ritual but a form of financial protection.
It is not like all of the people who are getting married, or
even most of them for that matter, are including your religion or any religion in the process.
The people want to
grow old together knowing that them and their loved one will enjoy all the benefits that you and your loved one will
have.
Denying them this is saying their commitment and love for each other is not as strong what a man and a
woman can have. Even if you feel that is true, considering the divorce rate, the commitment and love between
heteros is not necessarily strong in the case of marriages, considering the divorce rate of those marriages.
I am
not going to inject my personal opinions on whether marriage should or shouldn\'t be allowed for gays, other than
what I previously said, I believe it should be a state issue. I thougth Federalism was all based on giving states
the right to choose most of its laws. Since this isn\'t a black and white issue, why would the Federal Government
be interfering with it? Oh. That Bush guy, whose personal religious convictions make it a black and white
issue.
Anyway, I just wanted to re-shine the spotlight on the real issues at stake, because I think you are
missing them.
I also have a question for you.... If a gay couple went to a place of worship from your relgion and
asked them if they could go through the relgious ceremony for marriage, would/do they do it?
If they don\'t,
then it would seem like the ban you desire is already intact. If the marriage doesn\'t have your religion\'s
stamp on it, what is the problem?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I do get the issues here. I
just don\'t agree to the way they are being argued. I have a right to my opinion just the same as you do to yours.
Telling me that a lot of people don\'t agree with me and that\'s why I should vote in favor of something I
don\'t agree with is basically telling me to not voice my opinion on something.
Saying that marriage isn\'t
as strong an institution as it used to be also isn\'t a valid argument. That\'s like saying, \"Well, we know
there\'s something wrong with homosexuals getting married, but marriage isn\'t worth anything anymore anyway,
so what would it hurt?\" I still believe in the institution of marriage, and just because a lot of people don\'t
think it means anything anymore, doesn\'t mean EVERYBODY believes that.
The problem with gay marriage being a
states issue is that federal law atm states that if one state passes a law, that other states must honor it. So if a
gay couple went to say, California and got married, and came back home to say, Idaho, Idaho would have to recognize
that marriage as valid. What if the people of Idaho voted against gay marriage? According to federal law, they would
still have to honor the marriage. So it\'s not really a case of states\' rights. As the law presently stands,
anybody can just go to a state that allows gay marriage and come home saying the marriage must be honored.
As
to whether I should be ok with something because it doesn\'t have my religion\'s \'stamp\' on it is another
bad argument. As I stated in the beginning of this post. I do not agree with gay marriage. That is MY belief. When
it comes to voicing my belief, I\'m not speaking for anybody else. Just myself. It doesn\'t matter to me whether
the marriage is religious or not, I don\'t agree with it. Therefore asking me to agree with it just because they
may not be Christian has nothing to do with whether or not it would make it ok for me.
belgareth
02-28-2004, 06:44 AM
There are a lot of strong feelings being expressed here. Should we lock this thread? I don\'t want to
but also don\'t want it turned into a fight that gets a lot of feelings hurt.
What do you folks think?
Sexyredhead
02-28-2004, 06:45 AM
It\'s up to you. I\'m not going to argue this anymore. Especially since I said I wasn\'t gonna.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I\'m not going to change my mind and I doubt anyone else
will.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Saying that marriage isn\'t as strong an
institution as it used to be also isn\'t a valid argument.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Sorry, never said this. Not even close.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The problem with gay marriage being a states issue is that federal law atm states that if one state passes a law,
that other states must honor it. So if a gay couple went to say, California and got married, and came back home to
say, Idaho, Idaho would have to recognize that marriage as valid. What if the people of Idaho voted against gay
marriage? According to federal law, they would still have to honor the marriage. So it\'s not really a case of
states\' rights. As the law presently stands, anybody can just go to a state that allows gay marriage and come
home saying the marriage must be honored.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
It doesn\'t matter to me whether the marriage is
religious or not, I don\'t agree with it. Therefore asking me to agree with it just because they may not be
Christian has nothing to do with whether or not it would make it ok for me.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
The sentiment of \"Not for gay marriage?: Don\'t get one.\" is obviously something you do
not agree with.
IMO, states and religions should decide whether gay marriage is okay for those specific states
and religions, and not for any others.
franki
02-28-2004, 06:55 AM
I
don\'t think it needs to be locked (yet). Discussion has been pretty civil up to here, although it is a
difficult/emotional topic.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
There are a lot of strong feelings being expressed
here. Should we lock this thread? I don\'t want to but also don\'t want it turned into a fight that gets a lot
of feelings hurt.
What do you folks think?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
What, this
wasn\'t being discussed when people felt it was okay to discriminate against gay couples.
So why is this being
brought up when religion comes into the equation?
Elana was just trying to protect her friend.
belgareth
02-28-2004, 07:00 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
There are a lot of strong feelings being expressed here. Should we lock this
thread? I don\'t want to but also don\'t want it turned into a fight that gets a lot of feelings hurt.
What
do you folks think?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
What, this wasn\'t being discussed when
people felt it was okay to discriminate against gay couples.
So why is this being brought up when religion comes
into the equation?
Elana was just trying to protect her friend.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
It was brought up a while back when religion was discussed and that thread was removed from the
public venue completely. I am asking opinions here and intend to respect the majority view. I assume your reply to
my question is a firm NO.
Yea. That is a vote for no, but once again, I don\'t think religion specifically is being attacked. It was at a
certain part of the thread, but that all got quelled once something was said.
The issue of whether religion
belongs in goverment is more of what is being raised, and that is entirely different.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feeling
get hurt when someone\'s religion is bashed.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> But this thread is
not about `bashing´ ,but it ought to be possible to voice an opinion and feelings about religion somewhat.
Especially seing as religion(s) criticise and make their opinions known too. So it should be okay, especially when
there´s actual facts in play......... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
So, what about my
question? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
belgareth
02-28-2004, 07:14 AM
That\'s true, it is about whether religion belongs in government. IMO it does not but I am not
rabidly opposed to the degree that some of the more fanatical are. After all, our country was founded on principles
taught in many fine religions. It would be nice if the principles could be observed without the need to select one
particular flavor of religion or even to associate them with religion at all.
belgareth
02-28-2004, 07:16 AM
One of the biggest problems, as I see it, is that people will always vote based on their belief. So, no
matter how you strive to keep the two seperated, there will always be this debate.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I think a big problem is that the people in the
government are so reliously inclined, they have always used (or even abused) it to improve their `image´ so people
think Ah, he goes to church etc and talks of god, so he must be a good person and thus worthy of my
support.
Religion has no place in government affairs and how a country ought to be run IMO but the united states
really aren´t the only ones on this train.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
The U.S., however, was
founded by a bunch of guys who were fairly anti traditional religion. Folks try to hammer the bible into the
constitution by insisting that the U.S. was founded to be a \"Christian nation\" don\'t know their history.
Dubya\'s admin is pretty heavy in these types.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feeling get hurt when
someone\'s religion is bashed.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> But this thread is not about
`bashing´ ,but it ought to be possible to voice an opinion and feelings about religion somewhat. Especially seing as
religion(s) criticise and make their opinions known too. So it should be okay, especially when there´s actual facts
in play......... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
So, what about my question?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Nothing wrong
with religion. Nothing wrong with having an opinion about gay marriage. It\'s just that there\'s something scary
about letting politicians mess with the constitution.
So, please... don\'t anybody be hurt or upset.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I don\'t think it needs to be locked (yet).
Discussion has been pretty civil up to here, although it is a difficult/emotional topic.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Yeah, well-- the topic has all the touchy elements-- sex, politics, and
religion.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I don\'t support gay marriage. I believe marriage
is a religious ceremony, and I believe my religion does not condone homosexuality. Therefore I believe it would be
against the \'law\' of my religion to marry homosexuals.
However, I also do not support a constitutional
amendment against gay marriage. Why? Because again, I believe marriage is a religious ceremony, and I do not want
the government regulating what I can do where or when in my religion.
This does not mean I hate gay people. The
doesn\'t even mean I won\'t talk to them or be friends with gay people.
These are my beliefs and my opinions
on this, and I refuse to argue about them. But opinions were asked for, and I\'m giving mine. Flame away.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Nothing wrong with your opinion, gal.
Rakesh
02-28-2004, 08:19 AM
Well I believe the government is kinda stepping beyond it\'s area of power here. The entire point of democracy
and the western politics is allowing everybody to live his/her individual life in the way that suits him/her best.
When the government tries to enforce a certain way of thinking and represses everything outside it, it is called
fascism. I can understand laws banning sex in public in Vatican, but when somebody tries to forbid certain sexual
practices, I can go berserk. As long as both (or rather, all involved
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif) people enjoy what they are doing, and are doing it voluntarily,
they can stick stuffed walrusses in each other\'s arse and nobody should frickin care, let alone have any open
objections. It is our choice whether we want to take the \"live and let live\" approach, or if we decide to go
prudish and feed other people our own (often effed up) opinions.
And bugger \"tradition\". Just because a piece
of crap has been around for 200 years doesn\'t make it any less crappy.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Well I believe the government is kinda stepping
beyond it\'s area of power here. The entire point of democracy and the western politics is allowing everybody to
live his/her individual life in the way that suits him/her best. When the government tries to enforce a certain way
of thinking and represses everything outside it, it is called fascism. I can understand laws banning sex in public
in Vatican, but when somebody tries to forbid certain sexual practices, I can go berserk. As long as both (or
rather, all involved /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif) people enjoy what they are doing, and are
doing it voluntarily, they can stick stuffed walrusses in each other\'s arse and nobody should frickin care, let
alone have any open objections. It is our choice whether we want to take the \"live and let live\" approach, or if
we decide to go prudish and feed other people our own (often effed up) opinions.
And bugger \"tradition\". Just
because a piece of crap has been around for 200 years doesn\'t make it any less crappy.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Well, no. The states DO have a constitutional right to regulate marriage.
If a particular state\'s voters prefer to outlaw gay marriage, so be it. If another area\'s voters decide to
endorse gay marriage-- fine.
Laws are already on the books, re: the disposition of marriages that are entered
into in a state where they are legal, when the couple moved to a state where they are illegal (such as, marriages
between cousins, age of consent differences).
EXIT63
02-28-2004, 08:58 AM
It\'s all about politics.
A constitutional amendmendment needs a two thirds vote in the house and senate.
It then must be ratified by 38 states.
Bush knows it ain\'t gonna happen. He\'s just shoring up his base
for the November election. He\'s looking at polls that say 60% of Americans are against gay marriage and playing
to those voters.
The administration is using this issue to get the whole National Guard thing off the front
pages.
And guess what? It worked.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feelings
get hurt when someone\'s religion is bashed. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Religion is a very personal and emotional issue. I think Elana is correct
that this post thread should end.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
It\'s all about politics.
A constitutional
amendmendment needs a two thirds vote in the house and senate. It then must be ratified by 38 states.
Bush
knows it ain\'t gonna happen. He\'s just shoring up his base for the November election. He\'s looking at
polls that say 60% of Americans are against gay marriage and playing to those voters.
The administration is using
this issue to get the whole National Guard thing off the front pages.
And guess what? It worked.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Excellent point, Exit. We\'re also speculating abot \"capturing
Osama\" JUST in time for the elections.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feelings
get hurt when someone\'s religion is bashed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion
is a very personal and emotional issue. I think Elana is correct that this post thread should end.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> I don´t because it´s an interesting discussion and for once it´s not about
`women want this...´ stuff either. It´s interesting and I don´t have the feeling that it´s heated up or nasty or
anything.
I kinda doubt that there will be a big vote on this subject or this this a real possibility?
EXIT63
02-28-2004, 10:37 AM
What she said. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Elana
02-28-2004, 10:39 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
What she said.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Which she?
EXIT63
02-28-2004, 10:41 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
What she said. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Which she?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Uhhh /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Both. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feelings get hurt when
someone\'s religion is bashed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion is a very
personal and emotional issue. I think Elana is correct that this post thread should end.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> I don´t because it´s an interesting discussion and for once it´s not about
`women wann this...´ stuff either. It´s interesting and I don´t have the feeling that it´s heated up or nasty or
anything.
I kinda doubt that there will be a big vote on this subject or this this a real possibility?
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I think Exit is right-- I think this is just pre-election grandstanding.
I DO think Der Groppenfueher is seriously hoping for a constitutional amendment that would allow a naturalized
citizen to run for prexie. That won\'t happen, either.
It\'s not about either issue, it\'s about the
complexity and difficulty of messing with the constitution.
For the record-- I believe that marriage is a civil
contract (rather than a religious or sacramental). I would also vote for gay marrige. If I was outvoted-- it\'s
the will of the people.
I do not, however, believe that I am necessarily right (if there IS such a thing as
\"right\'), or that people who think differently are wrong.
I guess that\'s why I only have one vote.
<g>
franki
02-28-2004, 10:46 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I DO think Der Groppenfueher is seriously
hoping for a constitutional amendment that would allow a naturalized citizen to run for prexie. That won\'t
happen, either.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Is Mr.Schwarzenegger really that bad that
you have the use Nazi-terms all the time? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Rakesh
02-28-2004, 10:57 AM
And whats wrong about nazi terms, du schweinhund? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
franki
02-28-2004, 10:58 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
And whats wrong about nazi terms, du schweinhund?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Well, I think it
goes too far too compare him to an SS-Gruppenführer like Kari does all the time..
franki
02-28-2004, 11:08 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
schweinhund?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
is that the only
german you know? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Der Groppenfueher
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\"> Gruppenführer</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
schweinhund?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> Schweinehund
When insulting and calling names like this please at
least make sure you get the words right /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I DO think Der Groppenfueher is seriously hoping for a constitutional
amendment that would allow a naturalized citizen to run for prexie. That won\'t happen, either.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Is Mr.Schwarzenegger really that bad that you have the use Nazi-terms all
the time? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
Yes, I think so.
franki
02-28-2004, 11:15 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Der Groppenfueher
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Gruppenführer
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
CJ, Groppenfuehrer is a combination of
Gruppenführer and groping, because of Arnold\'s history.. This is supposed to be funny..
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Der Groppenfueher
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Gruppenführer</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
schweinhund?
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> Schweinehund
When insulting and calling names like this please at least make
sure you get the words right /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
\"Groppenfuehrer\" is a reference to his tendency to \"grope\" women
whom he considers to be of lower status. It\'s a Denglish neologism that the media made up.
I´d
change that to `gropingführer´ it´s better linguistically /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Der
Groppenfueher
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> Gruppenführer
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
CJ, Groppenfuehrer is a combination of Gruppenführer and groping, because of Arnold\'s
history.. This is supposed to be funny.. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
It\'s come
into pretty much common usage, in CA. I think the L.A. Times started it, and the rest of the media picked it up.
Rakesh
02-28-2004, 11:38 AM
Schweinehund is the gramatically correct spelling, and exactly the form nobody would ever really use
So halt\'s
Maul!:) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Schweinehund is the gramatically correct spelling,
and exactly the form nobody would ever really use
So halt\'s Maul!:)
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Ah-nold\'s dad
was a card-carrying nazi. It shows in Ah-nold, in places.
Holmes
02-28-2004, 11:45 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Ah-nold\'s dad was a card-carrying nazi. It shows
in Ah-nold, in places.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Sure does.
Holmes
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Schweinehund
is the gramatically correct spelling, and exactly the form nobody would ever really use
So halt\'s Maul!:)
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Ah-nold\'s dad
was a card-carrying nazi. It shows in Ah-nold, in places.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Sure
does.
Holmes
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
What does it say about the voters when someone
who is pregidous and who sexually assaults women is elected?
Holmes
02-28-2004, 11:51 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
What does it say about the voters when someone who
is pregidous and who sexually assaults women is elected?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
It says
that they\'re star-struck airheads. Among other things.
Holmes
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
What does it say about the voters when someone who
is pregidous and who sexually assaults women is elected?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> I don´t
like men who assault women but in his `defence´ he ain´t the only one that´s for sure
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
What does it say about the voters when someone who is pregidous and who
sexually assaults women is elected?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
It says that they\'re
star-struck airheads. Among other things.
Holmes
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Well, he
only sexually assaults women who he thinks can\'t fight back. NOT the A-list actresses. He assaults waitresses and
make-up and script girls, and starlets. Some A-listers-- like Candy Bergman-- campaigned hard against him.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
What does it say about the voters when someone who is pregidous and who
sexually assaults women is elected?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> I don´t like men who assault
women but in his `defence´ he ain´t the only one that´s for sure
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
You are WAY too right about that!
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
What does
it say about the voters when someone who is pregidous and who sexually assaults women is elected?
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> I don´t like men who assault women but in his `defence´ he ain´t the only one
that´s for sure
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
You are WAY too right about that!
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
And because a man will still win elections big time despite way too many
accusations about that, the signal that gets sent is that such acts are acceptable, and there will continue to be
part of our society with way too many grabby men who are not treated like the degenerates and pieces of sh!T that
they are.
People like that should not be taken seriously, be in leadership positions. Society has to send a
message that it is unacceptable, but I guess, based on the election, it is.
franki
02-28-2004, 12:14 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
What does it say about the voters when someone who
is pregidous and who sexually assaults women is elected?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> I don´t
like men who assault women but in his `defence´ he ain´t the only one that´s for sure
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
You are WAY too right about that!
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
And
because a man will still win elections big time despite way too many accusations about that, the signal that gets
sent is that such acts are acceptable, and there will continue to be part of our society with way too many grabby
men who are not treated like the degenerates and pieces of sh!T that they are.
People like that should not be
taken seriously, be in leadership positions. Society has to send a message that it is unacceptable, but I guess,
based on the election, it is.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Men are men and they make mistakes.
I don\'t say what Arnold did is right, but I do think that we tend to be overly politically correct on things like
this.
Holmes
02-28-2004, 12:15 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
And because a man will still win elections big time
despite way too many accusations about that, the signal that gets sent is that such acts are acceptable, and there
will continue to be part of our society with way too many grabby men who are not treated like the degenerates and
pieces of sh!T that they are.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
That is the awful truth.
Holmes
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Men are men and they make mistakes. I don\'t say
what Arnold did is right, but I do think that we tend to be overly politically correct on things like this.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Making a mistake is different then repeatedly doing something
over and over again. That is not a \"mistake\".
I do not think people are P.C. enough about this, or
otherwise, he would not have been elected.
To me it is a serious act against a women, but I\'ll respect your
stance on the issue.
You
guys can discuss this. I am out of this one. Enjoy! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
You guys can discuss this. I am out of this one.
Enjoy! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Okay,
just mae sure Elana gets her royalties on that one. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif It would have been simpler if Pancho had used just another one of
his polls but the again,not as interesting as this discussion has been
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Quorum
02-28-2004, 02:38 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The bottom line is that this proposed amendment is
unconstitutional. Even if Bush somehow got everyone in congress and every individual state to support this, the
Supreme Court should easily declare this unconstitutional because there is no way a country can support such an
amendment with no logical base but only a religiously moral issue.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
Therein lies the rub: if this got passed by Congress and ratified by the states, the Supreme
Court couldn\'t do anything about it. That\'s the reason that clowns like Bush and his right-wing base are
supporting this. They worry that the Supreme Court is going to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, a regular
law that passed in 1996, so they want something that can\'t be struck down.
Seriously, when anyone can
articulate one specific, concrete, imminent harm - other than mere generalities - that gay marriage would cause to
either their own marriage OR to the institution of marriage itself, I\'ll join SRH and others in opposing it,
notwithstanding that I\'m gay myself. Thousands of gay couples have now been married in San Francisco, and a few
in New Mexico and now even in a small town in New York, and you\'ll notice that no, the sky has clearly not
fallen, nor has western civilization come crashing down as the right-wing as-----s have been warning. And
I\'m not holding my breath either. Personally, I always thought that civil unions were a perfectly acceptable
alternative to marriage for gay couples, but the arguments that have been made gay marriage, so far, are proving to
be so full of s--t that now I\'m getting more and more convinced that there really is no other alternative. I
have a feeling that as more people take an honest look around and notice that what Rosie O\'Donnell did at city
hall a few days ago has absolutely no negative impact whatsoever on either them or the institution of marriage,
they\'ll feel the same way.
Just my two cents . . . Thanks for reading
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr
/>
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
What does it say about the voters when someone who is pregidous and who
sexually assaults women is elected?
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> I don´t like men who assault
women but in his `defence´ he ain´t the only one that´s for sure
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
You are WAY too right about that!
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
And
because a man will still win elections big time despite way too many accusations about that, the signal that gets
sent is that such acts are acceptable, and there will continue to be part of our society with way too many grabby
men who are not treated like the degenerates and pieces of sh!T that they are.
People like that should not be
taken seriously, be in leadership positions. Society has to send a message that it is unacceptable, but I guess,
based on the election, it is.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Men are men and they make mistakes.
I don\'t say what Arnold did is right, but I do think that we tend to be overly politically correct on things like
this.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Our governor makes a lot of \"mistakes\" and doesn\'t
seem to learn from them. If he worked for a corporation, demanding that a waitress stick her fingers in her vagina,
and then up his nose, would get him fired. So would throwing the make-up girl to the floor of an elevator, stopping
the thing between floors, and attempting to rape her. Then, there was the gang bang at Gold\'s gym. He gets away
with the stuff, because he\'s a movie star (rather than an actor).
The stuff he does ranges from sexual
harassment to full-out violent sexual assault-- not \"mistakes.\" I CANNOT believe you would condone this, under
the guise of \"political correctness,\" Franki. Attempted rape is not JUST \"politically incorrect.\" Some of
these women have had their livelihoods threatened, when they tried to file criminal complaints.
The guy is
notorious and unrelenting. He\'s also a lousy governor. I live here. You don\'t.
Now, I\'m outta here,
because I\'m angry and disgusted.
Have a nice day. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
franki
02-28-2004, 04:06 PM
Hey, I don\'t say it is ok what he did, nor can i verify it, but judging by all the press attention for this it
seems people are aware of these problems already. BTW, I cant believe he can actually become governor when he
really attempted rape.. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Hey, I don\'t say it is ok what he did, nor can i
verify it, but judging by all the press attention for this it seems people are aware of these problems already.
BTW, I cant believe he can actually become governor when he really attempted rape..
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Yeah.. and I
can\'t believe that O.J. got off, either. Or, that a passel of our drugged out celebs aren\'t in jail or
treatment. Or, that James Brown was FINALLY charged with wife beating, when the cops have hitherto always looked the
other way. Welcome to Hollyweird.
Good bye.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.