Across nation, gay advocates protest marriage ban

[LiberalNation]

Was there a protest in your city. Did it make the local news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage;_ylt=Arjt7A5cO_Zfv9WIblxAas0DW7oF

BOSTON – Gay rights supporters waving rainbow colors marched, chanted and danced in cities coast to coast Saturday to protest the vote that banned gay marriage in California and to urge supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed.

Crowds gathered near public buildings in cities large and small, including Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Fargo, to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change.

"Civil marriages are a civil right, and we're going to keep fighting until we get the rights we deserve as American citizens," Karen Amico said in Philadelphia, holding up a sign reading "Don't Spread H8".


However, representatives of Join the Impact, which organized Saturday's demonstrations, asked supporters to be respectful and refrain from attacking other groups during the rallies.

Seattle blogger Amy Balliett, who started the planning for the protests when she set up a Web page three days after the California vote, said persuasion is impossible without civility.

"If we can move anybody past anger and have a respectful conversation, then you can plant the seed of change," she said.

Balliett said supporters in 300 cities in the U.S. and other countries were holding marches, and she estimated 1 million people would participate, based on responses at the Web sites her group set up.

"We need to show the world when one thing happens to one of us, it happens to all of us," she said.

The protests were widely reported to be peaceful, and the mood in Boston was generally upbeat, with attendees dancing to the song "Respect." Signs cast the fight for gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, including one that read "Gay is the new black."

But anger over the ban and its backers was evident at the protests.

One sign in Chicago read: "Catholic Fascists Stay Out of Politics."

"I just found out that my state doesn't really think I'm a person," said Rose Aplustill, 21, a Boston University student from Los Osos, Calif., who was one of thousands at the Boston rally.

In San Francisco, demonstrators took shots at some religious groups that supported the ban, including a sign aimed at the Mormon church and its abandoned practice of polygamy that read: "You have three wives; I want one husband."

[stephanie]

I'm sure their endearing a whole lot of people to their cause..what ever it is..

they might as well get it through their thick heads..the majority of people tolerate their lifestyle, but don't believe its right..

now trying to force it on people, I'm sure that's going to work..:rolleyes:

[retiredman]

I'm sure their endearing a whole lot of people to their cause..what ever it is..

they might as well get it through their thick heads..the majority of people tolerate their lifestyle, but don't believe its right..

now trying to force it on people, I'm sure that's going to work..:rolleyes:

how is allowing gays to marry "forcing their lifestyle" on ANYONE else?

[stephanie]

they already can marry, just like the rest of us..

[retiredman]

they already can marry, just like the rest of us..


you avoided the question.

why am I not surprised?

[stephanie]

you avoided the question.

why am I not surprised?


look little man, I don't jump through your hoops..
We've had this discussion here more than once..
I commented on the article posted, now go kick your dog or something

[Immanuel]

Was there a protest in your city. Did it make the local news.


About 100 people, seems to have been peaceful.


look little man, I don't jump through your hoops..
We've had this discussion here more than once..
I commented on the article posted, now go kick your dog or something

It is a good thing I don't have your address or I might call the "Animal Cops" and have you arrested for cruelty to animals. Why on Earth would you want to abuse an animal like that? And, to think, I don't even like dogs, but I would never kick one or tell someone else to kick one.

Immie

j/k Steph.

[retiredman]

look little man, I don't jump through your hoops..
We've had this discussion here more than once..
I commented on the article posted, now go kick your dog or something


YOu are the one who said that gay marriage proponents were trying to force their lifestyle on others. I merely asked you to explain how that could happen.

[stephanie]

they could just live quietly like the rest of us do..and accept the fact the majority of people do not believe their lifestyle is ok..they aren't satisfied that people accept it, they want to ram it down their throats as it's NORMAL..

it is a choice, they chose it, so they can live with it quietly and stop trying to force people to accept it as it's normal..

but as we can see, that isn't going to happen..so they can piss off the people who even tolerate it...their loss.

[retiredman]

they could just live quietly like the rest of us do..and accept the fact the majority of people do not believe their lifestyle is ok..they aren't satisfied that people accept it, they want to ram it down their throats as it's NORMAL..

it is a choice, they chose it, so they can live with it quietly and stop trying to force people to accept it as it's normal..

but as we can see, that isn't going to happen..so they can piss off the people who even tolerate it...their loss.


how does the fact that two people who love one another and choose to spend their lives together as a married couple "force" ANYTHING on ANYONE else?

[Immanuel]

they could just live quietly like the rest of us do..and accept the fact the majority of people do not believe their lifestyle is ok..they aren't satisfied that people accept it, they want to ram it down their throats as it's NORMAL..


I have not commented on LN's thread about the racial incidents yet. I started to but just couldn't put the words to it that did not sound corny. But, you say that gay people could just live quietly like the rest of us do. Couldn't that be said about the racists of the country that are shaming the rest of us? Couldn't it be said about conservatives who oppose Obama?

Hey, we lost, we should sit down and shut up like everyone else. Right? Is that really the American way?

I don't support Gay Marriage. I voted for Amendment 2 in Florida although, if an Amendment is ever presented that would bring about "civil unions" in a fair and equitable way, I will probably vote for it. However, gay people have the same right that you do, to stand up and be heard in this country and I for one say more power to them. I don't have to listen to them, if I chose not to and I do so chose, but I am damned glad that they still have that right.

Immie

[Mr. P]

Was there a protest in your city. Did it make the local news.



Haven't heard of any.

[krisy]

I have not commented on LN's thread about the racial incidents yet. I started to but just couldn't put the words to it that did not sound corny. But, you say that gay people could just live quietly like the rest of us do. Couldn't that be said about the racists of the country that are shaming the rest of us? Couldn't it be said about conservatives who oppose Obama?

Hey, we lost, we should sit down and shut up like everyone else. Right? Is that really the American way?

I don't support Gay Marriage. I voted for Amendment 2 in Florida although, if an Amendment is ever presented that would bring about "civil unions" in a fair and equitable way, I will probably vote for it. However, gay people have the same right that you do, to stand up and be heard in this country and I for one say more power to them. I don't have to listen to them, if I chose not to and I do so chose, but I am damned glad that they still have that right.

Immie


I agree with you that they have the right to protest if they want ,about anything. What I have a problem with is the fact that it was o.k to put this up for a vote,for the people to decide....until they didn't like the results. Now it's o.k. to somehow overule the majority if possible.

[No1tovote4]

We have had no news about protests here.

[hjmick]

I'm pretty sue they set the fires out here in protest.






:joke:

[Mr. P]

I'm pretty sue they set the fires out here in protest.






:joke:

I have worked with some "flaming" gays, but they didn't light my fire.:laugh2:

[avatar4321]

Was there a protest in your city. Did it make the local news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage;_ylt=Arjt7A5cO_Zfv9WIblxAas0DW7oF

BOSTON – Gay rights supporters waving rainbow colors marched, chanted and danced in cities coast to coast Saturday to protest the vote that banned gay marriage in California and to urge supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed.

Crowds gathered near public buildings in cities large and small, including Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Fargo, to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change.

"Civil marriages are a civil right, and we're going to keep fighting until we get the rights we deserve as American citizens," Karen Amico said in Philadelphia, holding up a sign reading "Don't Spread H8".


However, representatives of Join the Impact, which organized Saturday's demonstrations, asked supporters to be respectful and refrain from attacking other groups during the rallies.

Seattle blogger Amy Balliett, who started the planning for the protests when she set up a Web page three days after the California vote, said persuasion is impossible without civility.

"If we can move anybody past anger and have a respectful conversation, then you can plant the seed of change," she said.

Balliett said supporters in 300 cities in the U.S. and other countries were holding marches, and she estimated 1 million people would participate, based on responses at the Web sites her group set up.

"We need to show the world when one thing happens to one of us, it happens to all of us," she said.

The protests were widely reported to be peaceful, and the mood in Boston was generally upbeat, with attendees dancing to the song "Respect." Signs cast the fight for gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, including one that read "Gay is the new black."

But anger over the ban and its backers was evident at the protests.

One sign in Chicago read: "Catholic Fascists Stay Out of Politics."

"I just found out that my state doesn't really think I'm a person," said Rose Aplustill, 21, a Boston University student from Los Osos, Calif., who was one of thousands at the Boston rally.

In San Francisco, demonstrators took shots at some religious groups that supported the ban, including a sign aimed at the Mormon church and its abandoned practice of polygamy that read: "You have three wives; I want one husband."

I am tired of these angry bigots protesting Democracy. You lost. Stop trying to force your views on the rest of us.

[crin63]

They are dismissed to go back to the closet.

[namvet]

we used to roll em for beer money to get babes. the good ole days HA:lol:

[Sitarro]

how is allowing gays to marry "forcing their lifestyle" on ANYONE else?

They can get married every day if they want to, it just isn't recognized as a real marriage because nobody cares what people that have sex with their same sex do, just as most don't care about the dimwits that poke their sheep....... same thing, sexual oddities, they are the ones at odds with almost everyone else........ who gives a shit? But, just as the guy that marries his sheep...... or is it ewe........ or is it a ram because he is also gay so he is more comfortable having sex with a male sheep?????...... that deviant sex stuff all gets so confusing, it still won't be recognized by most normal humans.:cool:

Next thing we will hear about is some jerk that wants to marry his pillow.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Des]

What ever happened to the Christian notion of free will, love, and not being an a-hole in general? Who would actually go out of their way to vote against a group of people being married?

If anything, MY marriage is a threat to the church/religious lifestyle anti-gay proponents seem to want to protect so badly. I am a woman married to a man, we aren't religious at all and our ceremony was not performed in a church, we have two children.

[stephanie]

I think I should have "SPECIAL RIGHTS" because I'm short..and if I don't get them, I'm gonna go kick a few people in the kneecaps..how dare they vote against me...:dance:

[Yurt]

What ever happened to the Christian notion of free will, love, and not being an a-hole in general? Who would actually go out of their way to vote against a group of people being married?

If anything, MY marriage is a threat to the church/religious lifestyle anti-gay proponents seem to want to protect so badly. I am a woman married to a man, we aren't religious at all and our ceremony was not performed in a church, we have two children.

i suggest you do some more research into what a "christian" notion is...it is clear that you think it means hippie love...it doesn't, ever read the OT?

[avatar4321]

What ever happened to the Christian notion of free will, love, and not being an a-hole in general? Who would actually go out of their way to vote against a group of people being married?

If anything, MY marriage is a threat to the church/religious lifestyle anti-gay proponents seem to want to protect so badly. I am a woman married to a man, we aren't religious at all and our ceremony was not performed in a church, we have two children.

I get it. You're better than all of us. Great. it doesnt change the situation here

[hjmick]

I get it. You're better than all of us. Great. it doesnt change the situation here

Damn it! I thought I was better than all ya'all!

[Sitarro]

Hey!!!! I'm single and don't have the millions of benefits given to married people......... that's not fair!!!!! I want to marry myself!

[AlbumAddict]

I don't support Gay Marriage. I voted for Amendment 2 in Florida although, if an Amendment is ever presented that would bring about "civil unions" in a fair and equitable way, I will probably vote for it.

FYI, I voted against it. I lost. :( Although I personally believe that marriage should be one man and one woman, I do not believe it's a constitutional matter. For me, this personal issue is really none of the government's business.


What ever happened to the Christian notion of free will, love, and not being an a-hole in general? Who would actually go out of their way to vote against a group of people being married?

After rereading what you wrote. You're absolutely right. God gives us free will, He calls us to love not only Him, but each other and the asshole thing is a given! (For the record, it seems very Biblical and not at all hippiesque to me!)

What I find interesting about conservatives in general is they want to keep the government out of their personal lives, but inject government into the lives of homosexuals. Sounds kinda hypocritcal when you look at that way. Hmmmm

This is why a two party system sucks for me....I'm both. Consider me politically transgendered.


I think I should have "SPECIAL RIGHTS" because I'm short

You're not short. You're fun-sized! :cheers2:

[stephanie]

what the hell...

this was put to a vote for the people to vote on and they voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman...

Marriage has been the same for 100's of years, so because a majority of people(and not just CONSERVATIVES) want to keep it that way, THEY ARE THE ones who should feel quilty..

total bs..

[LiberalNation]

it hasn't been overturned and just because you lose one battle doesn't mean you give up on your beliefs.

[Yurt]

After rereading what you wrote. You're absolutely right. God gives us free will, He calls us to love not only Him, but each other and the asshole thing is a given! (For the record, it seems very Biblical and not at all hippiesque to me!)

What I find interesting about conservatives in general is they want to keep the government out of their personal lives, but inject government into the lives of homosexuals. Sounds kinda hypocritcal when you look at that way. Hmmmm

This is why a two party system sucks for me....I'm both. Consider me politically transgendered.

how is it hypocriticla for conservatives to want to keep the government from sanctioning homosexual marriage? i would think that is exactly what conservatives would want, the government NOT changing the definition of what conservatives view as traditional marriage. that is not, as you say, injecting the government into people's lives, that is, by its very nature, keeping government out of people's lives.

[Immanuel]

FYI, I voted against it. I lost. :( Although I personally believe that marriage should be one man and one woman, I do not believe it's a constitutional matter. For me, this personal issue is really none of the government's business.

I actually kicked it around to vote against this. My reason for voting for it is that I believe that marraige it a rite of the church and the government should stay out of it all together.

I believe that the government should sanction civil unions for everyone and let the church deal with the marriage issue. Voting against this amendment would have made that an impossibility. Let them go back and rewrite the amendment for civil unions and I will change the way I vote.

Immie

[Des]

i suggest you do some more research into what a "christian" notion is...it is clear that you think it means hippie love...it doesn't, ever read the OT?

I have read the Old Testament, but it is my understanding that Christianity was founded on the ways of Christ, who came to undo the sacrificial, bloodythirsty ways of the old testament. Unfortunately, throughout history many people have forgotten this. Like the witch trials. Slavery. Etc, etc.

[Des]

I believe that marraige it a rite of the church and the government should stay out of it all together.


Immie

I wasn't married in a church, but it's still called a marriage. I have read somewhere that marriage licenses were issued to make sure "mixed" marriages did not occur, and prior to that, things were as you said. If that were to be the case, I'd agree with you. However, it would mean that my marriage would not be called one based on gender, but based on religion. Going backwards this way just doesn't seem like it would be a good thing...why I believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

[darin]

I have read the Old Testament, but it is my understanding that Christianity was founded on the ways of Christ, who came to undo the sacrificial, bloodythirsty ways of the old testament. Unfortunately, throughout history many people have forgotten this. Like the witch trials. Slavery. Etc, etc.


Your understanding isn't right. Christ came to FULLFILL not abolish the laws of the OT.

That might explain your confusion on this issue.

:)

[Des]

[QUOTE=dmp;324801]Your understanding isn't right. Christ came to FULLFILL not abolish the laws of the OT.

That might explain your confusion on this issue.

:)


Really? I haven't seen a church sacrifice a lamb at the alter for quite some time. Or kill someone for being a witch. Christ came to fufill the laws in a different way...and brought free will with him. The way Christ converted was through love, and nothing else. Love and self-sacrifice. He was supposedly a perfect, loving being who serves as the perfect example. There are plenty of ways to enforce the same laws, regardless...

[darin]

We had free-will from the moment of Creation. Christ converted through love, and a call for Holiness...he called for his followers to stop endulging their sin (Greed, murder, lust, etc). He called for his followers to STOP the pretense and showmanship of the Religious Leaders of the day. To get back to what counts - Loving God and your fellow man.

To indulge Homosexuals, Murderers (Abortion Doctors, Terrorists, etc) and liars (Lazy Welfare folk) is to do the OPPOSITE of 'loving them'. It's to hate them so much you refuse to tell them the Truth - the truth that their lifestyle brings pain and ultimate seperation from God.

[Des]

We had free-will from the moment of Creation. Christ converted through love, and a call for Holiness...he called for his followers to stop endulging their sin (Greed, murder, lust, etc). He called for his followers to STOP the pretense and showmanship of the Religious Leaders of the day. To get back to what counts - Loving God and your fellow man.

To indulge Homosexuals, Murderers (Abortion Doctors, Terrorists, etc) and liars (Lazy Welfare folk) is to do the OPPOSITE of 'loving them'. It's to hate them so much you refuse to tell them the Truth - the truth that their lifestyle brings pain and ultimate seperation from God.


Everything is not so black and white. Lust is not always a sin, etc...even within the branches of Christianity, many churches disagree on the most basic principles and proclaim they are the "true" version of Christianity.

Your logic would work in a theocracy. Fortunately, we do not live in one. I am able to live and thrive in this country as someone who does not practice any religion. "Allowing" me to live this way IS what you would call "indulging". There are some pretty basic reasons America is a democracy, and some of our basic rights and freedoms extend from those reasons. Your right to swing the fist of religious belief (if that makes sense) ends at the tip of the other persons nose.

[darin]

Everything is not so black and white. Lust is not always a sin, etc...even within the branches of Christianity, many churches disagree on the most basic principles and proclaim they are the "true" version of Christianity.

Well - Christianity aside...if one follows the teachings of The Bible, one can clearly see Lust IS always sin - in fact Lust (and other internal problems) are probably MORE the sin than the actual act.


Your logic would work in a theocracy. Fortunately, we do not live in one. I am able to live and thrive in this country as someone who does not practice any religion. "Allowing" me to live this way IS what you would call "indulging". There are some pretty basic reasons America is a democracy, and some of our basic rights and freedoms extend from those reasons. Your right to swing the fist of religious belief (if that makes sense) ends at the tip of the other persons nose.

My logic isn't defined by the form of government. Now, you're diverting the topic again.
:)

[Immanuel]

I have read the Old Testament, but it is my understanding that Christianity was founded on the ways of Christ, who came to undo the sacrificial, bloodythirsty ways of the old testament. Unfortunately, throughout history many people have forgotten this. Like the witch trials. Slavery. Etc, etc.

Christ founded Christianity.

He fulfilled the laws and became our sacrifice. A sacrifice for all sinners from the beginning of time to the end. That is why Christians do not continue the sacrificial laws. Nor did he come to end the Old Testament laws. They are still in place. The Law was designed by God to show us that we are all sinners and that we need Jesus Christ as our savior. No one can keep the law in its entirety; therefore, all need a savior.


I wasn't married in a church, but it's still called a marriage. I have read somewhere that marriage licenses were issued to make sure "mixed" marriages did not occur, and prior to that, things were as you said. If that were to be the case, I'd agree with you. However, it would mean that my marriage would not be called one based on gender, but based on religion. Going backwards this way just doesn't seem like it would be a good thing...why I believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

I was married in a chapel in Reno. I am sure that my church would not consider it to be a proper marriage.

I believe that the State should get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil Unions should offer the legal benefits that we now see as being marriage based. The state issued "marriage license" is really nothing more than a contract between two individuals. If the state issued civil union contracts to all (straight or gay) rather than marriage licenses there would not be the issue in the church.

I do believe that current marriages (at the time this law were to take effect if it ever did) should be grandfathered in.

As for marriage, after this law took effect, there are churches that will marry gay couples. If the couple attends a church that will marry them, then that is fine, but there would be no benefits beyond religious ones, granted by being married.

Immie

[Des]

Christ founded Christianity.

He fulfilled the laws and became our sacrifice. A sacrifice for all sinners from the beginning of time to the end. That is why Christians do not continue the sacrificial laws. Nor did he come to end the Old Testament laws. They are still in place. The Law was designed by God to show us that we are all sinners and that we need Jesus Christ as our savior. No one can keep the law in its entirety; therefore, all need a savior.



I was married in a chapel in Reno. I am sure that my church would not consider it to be a proper marriage.

I believe that the State should get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil Unions should offer the legal benefits that we now see as being marriage based. The state issued "marriage license" is really nothing more than a contract between two individuals. If the state issued civil union contracts to all (straight or gay) rather than marriage licenses there would not be the issue in the church.

I do believe that current marriages (at the time this law were to take effect if it ever did) should be grandfathered in.

As for marriage, after this law took effect, there are churches that will marry gay couples. If the couple attends a church that will marry them, then that is fine, but there would be no benefits beyond religious ones, granted by being married.

Immie

What you said at the end, after my quote, is exactly how I feel...people will call their union what they wish to call it, anyway.

[Des]

Well - Christianity aside...if one follows the teachings of The Bible, one can clearly see Lust IS always sin - in fact Lust (and other internal problems) are probably MORE the sin than the actual act.



My logic isn't defined by the form of government. Now, you're diverting the topic again.
:)

No, no topic diverting here. If you live in a democracy and wish to take away the rights of others, your abilty to do so in restricted according to the form of government.

If human beings didn't lust, we wouldn't reproduce, and we'd cease to exist.

[LiberalNation]

Nor did he come to end the Old Testament laws. They are still in place.
so you eat only kosher then.

[Nukeman]

No, no topic diverting here. If you live in a democracy and wish to take away the rights of others, your abilty to do so in restricted according to the form of government.

If human beings didn't lust, we wouldn't reproduce, and we'd cease to exist.

but your forgetting that by "living in a democracy" they have VOTED, the outcome wasn't to the liking of the homosexual crowd.

IF as you say we live in a DEMOCRACY than the gay/lesbian groups should take the vote in stride and just "deal with it". It is after all the democratic thing to do!!!!

[Nukeman]

so you eat only kosher then.
You do realize that "kosher" is how the animal is prepared. You can make just about anything "kosher' if prepared right.

The Kosher laws were put into place for "CLEANLINESS" and "SANITARY" reasons. Since there was NO refridgeration at the time the food has to be prepared in specific ways to ensure freshness and safety. the best way to do this was to incorporate it into the religious aspects of day to day lives.... Geez LN do a little research, you are after all in college now!!!!!!

[darin]

No, no topic diverting here. If you live in a democracy and wish to take away the rights of others, your abilty to do so in restricted according to the form of government.

If human beings didn't lust, we wouldn't reproduce, and we'd cease to exist.

You are diverting. First you argued something from a Christian/Jesus perspective...then you shifted to Forms of Government. I'd be happy to discuss either with you - but it's difficult when you flip-flop between the two.

:)

[Des]

You are diverting. First you argued something from a Christian/Jesus perspective...then you shifted to Forms of Government. I'd be happy to discuss either with you - but it's difficult when you flip-flop between the two.

:)

When it comes to debating peoples behaviors and the legality of them, yes, they both apply.

[Des]

You do realize that "kosher" is how the animal is prepared. You can make just about anything "kosher' if prepared right.

The Kosher laws were put into place for "CLEANLINESS" and "SANITARY" reasons. Since there was NO refridgeration at the time the food has to be prepared in specific ways to ensure freshness and safety. the best way to do this was to incorporate it into the religious aspects of day to day lives.... Geez LN do a little research, you are after all in college now!!!!!!

The same could be said about the laws supposedly forbidding what we know today as homosexual behavior, and even the translations of those are shaky. You can't compare a past culture to todays culture and expect everything to be the same. There are some people who translate the passages to mean "non-consentual" homosexual sex...it was a common practice for men to rape other men after a battle. According to some of the old testament laws, I would have to sacrifice a dove once a month...pork was unclean because it contained disease and people became sick from it...

You cannot pick and choose.

[Nukeman]

The same could be said about the laws supposedly forbidding what we know today as homosexual behavior, and even the translations of those are shaky. You can't compare a past culture to todays culture and expect everything to be the same. There are some people who translate the passages to mean "non-consentual" homosexual sex...it was a common practice for men to rape other men after a battle. According to some of the old testament laws, I would have to sacrifice a dove once a month...pork was unclean because it contained disease and people became sick from it...

You cannot pick and choose.
Let you in on a liitle secret sweetheart, look at post number 45. I stated the people VOTED on the subject and it was voted down, you know the DEMOCRATIC way. If you don't like the democratic process when it doesn't give you what you want than get the hell out......... You can't have it both ways. You can't yell at others to repect your way of life than when it is put to a vote and shot down scream louder and tell everyone how closed minded they are. Your nothing more than a little child who didn't get the new toy they wanted and are now throwing a tantrum on the floor.........

[Des]

Let you in on a liitle secret sweetheart, look at post number 45. I stated the people VOTED on the subject and it was voted down, you know the DEMOCRATIC way. If you don't like the democratic process when it doesn't give you what you want than get the hell out......... You can't have it both ways. You can't yell at others to repect your way of life than when it is put to a vote and shot down scream louder and tell everyone how closed minded they are. Your nothing more than a little child who didn't get the new toy they wanted and are now throwing a tantrum on the floor.........

It's unconstitutional to allow people to vote on civil rights issues. Our government does many things, and one of those things is to protect the minority. The system of checks and balances worked perfectly when a supreme court justice delcared gay marriage to be a constitutional right. It failed when the system was misunderstood.

It's no different than the majority of Americans believing at one time that women were not equal to men and shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or that blacks didn't deserve the same privledges as whites. There was a time when the majority would have voted on those issues, and the minority would have fallen into the background. America is not suppose to be that kind of place.

[MtnBiker]

It's unconstitutional to allow people to vote on civil rights issues.

Where is that in the constitution?

[Nukeman]

It's unconstitutional to allow people to vote on civil rights issues. Our government does many things, and one of those things is to protect the minority. The system of checks and balances worked perfectly when a supreme court justice delcared gay marriage to be a constitutional right. It failed when the system was misunderstood.

It's no different than the majority of Americans believing at one time that women were not equal to men and shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or that blacks didn't deserve the same privledges as whites. There was a time when the majority would have voted on those issues, and the minority would have fallen into the background. America is not suppose to be that kind of place.You have got to be kidding me with this statement. You honestly believe it is unconstitutional for a vote on civil rights issues.......

So when we get a looney president, house, and senate that decides women need to be in the kitchen and NOT out in the work force, your all for that as long as it is put in place by the government and not the people!!! WOW just WOW.

Last time I checked we are governed BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. that means ALL not just the minority.

Guess what,,,, Just because comeone "CHOOSES" to have a alternative life style does not mean everyone has to accept it, also just because someone chooses to have homosexual sex does not mean we have to condone it....

[retiredman]

Guess what,,,, Just because comeone "CHOOSES" to have a alternative life style does not mean everyone has to accept it, also just because someone chooses to have homosexual sex does not mean we have to condone it....

again. How does two gay men getting married threaten you or harm you OR the institution of marriage in any way?

You of course realize that, up until the mid 60's, in many states, it was illegal for people of different races to marry. How is this any different?

[Des]

You have got to be kidding me with this statement. You honestly believe it is unconstitutional for a vote on civil rights issues.......

So when we get a looney president, house, and senate that decides women need to be in the kitchen and NOT out in the work force, your all for that as long as it is put in place by the government and not the people!!! WOW just WOW.

Last time I checked we are governed BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. that means ALL not just the minority.

Guess what,,,, Just because comeone "CHOOSES" to have a alternative life style does not mean everyone has to accept it, also just because someone chooses to have homosexual sex does not mean we have to condone it....

The government has the obligation to abide by the constitution. The constitution gave us our government, as well as each states and then local charters, etc...

Yes, the people are a part of the government. This is where the system of checks and balances comes in. A judge cannot write a law, but he may declare a law unconstitutional. The people in our country may vote for their leaders, for specific laws (about taxation, etc), but not on civil rights issues. That would negate the purpose of living in a democracy where civil rights are suppose to be the standard.

[Nukeman]

again. How does two gay men getting married threaten you or harm you OR the institution of marriage in any way?

You of course realize that, up until the mid 60's, in many states, it was illegal for people of different races to marry. How is this any different?

show me where I am threatend!!! Why do "two gay men having sex" deserve special treatment. I have NO problem with a "civil union" I do however have a problem with calling it a marriage. It is NOT a marriage!

As for the prohibition on "race" that was not my era or my generation we have moved beyond that, however that being said I will reiterate I do not have a problem with civil unions but don't call it a marriage.....

[retiredman]

show me where I am threatend!!! Why do "two gay men having sex" deserve special treatment. I have NO problem with a "civil union" I do however have a problem with calling it a marriage. It is NOT a marriage!

As for the prohibition on "race" that was not my era or my generation we have moved beyond that, however that being said I will reiterate I do not have a problem with civil unions but don't call it a marriage.....

how does calling it "marriage" harm you in any way?

[MtnBiker]

It's unconstitutional to allow people to vote on civil rights issues.

Where is that in the constitution?

[Immanuel]

A judge cannot write a law, but he may declare a law unconstitutional.

Actually, that is not quite true. It is called legislating from the bench and although they are not supposed to do this they do it all the time. Roe v. Wade was an example of legislating from the bench. They created a law that did not previously exist.

Immie

[avatar4321]

FYI, I voted against it. I lost. :( Although I personally believe that marriage should be one man and one woman, I do not believe it's a constitutional matter. For me, this personal issue is really none of the government's business.

The courts made it a constitution matter when they made the incorrect decision. I see no reason why not to fix their error.

[Des]

Where is that in the constitution?

The constitution describes the functions and limitations of the parts of the government. Some state constitutions (like Mass.) say that if enough names are on a petition, the issue may be put on a ballot. The purpose of a constitution is to provide neutral rules to be followed.

I shouldn't have said "it's unconstitutional", because pretty much every constitution provides for anyone to vote on whatever they want, if they wish to jump through all the loopholes.

That doesn't for one second mean it's right. There are things called common laws that every governing body and the people who live under it abide by that aren't neccesarily written out. Murder, for instance. These laws are decided through court decisions, etc...In California, for example, a judge declared the ban on homosexual unions unconstitutional. Turning around and voting on it morally, when there is no victim, would be akin to allowing the populace to vote on whether it's okay to murder someone for one reason or another.

The government shouldn't have any power in our homes, especially our bedrooms, and especially legitimizing how people are consensually conducting private business. Since the people are a part of the government in this case, the same statement applies to them.

[avatar4321]

No, no topic diverting here. If you live in a democracy and wish to take away the rights of others, your abilty to do so in restricted according to the form of government.

If human beings didn't lust, we wouldn't reproduce, and we'd cease to exist.

There are two sources of rights: God and the people.

IF God grants rights, then no person can take them away.

However, if the people grant rights, then they also have the rights to take them away.

In this case, neither God nor the people have granted anyone a right to marry someone of the same sex. In fact, the people have clearly spoken out against it.

There is no right to same sex marriage. It doesnt exist.

[Mr. P]

The government has the obligation to abide by the constitution. The constitution gave us our government, as well as each states and then local charters, etc...

Yes, the people are a part of the government. This is where the system of checks and balances comes in. A judge cannot write a law, but he may declare a law unconstitutional. The people in our country may vote for their leaders, for specific laws (about taxation, etc), but not on civil rights issues. That would negate the purpose of living in a democracy where civil rights are suppose to be the standard.

You must be a confused publicly educated young person, yes?

First: we do not live in a democracy..the U.S.A. is a Federal Republic.

Second: Checks and balances are a function of the branches of government, NOT the individual voter.

Third: any issue may be placed on a state ballot that is not addressed in the U.S. Constitution..in many states gay marriage has been and has been voted down..totally constitutional.

Forth: marriage is an opportunity everyone has, but it is not a right that it be recognized by the government.

[Des]

You must be a confused publicly educated young person, yes?

First: we do not live in a democracy..the U.S.A. is a Federal Republic.

Second: Checks and balances are a function of the branches of government, NOT the individual voter.

Third: any issue may be placed on a state ballot that is not addressed in the U.S. Constitution..in many states gay marriage has been and has been voted down..totally constitutional.

Forth: marriage is an opportunity everyone has, but it is not a right that it be recognized by the government.


A republic is a form of democracy. The individual voter is a part of the "people", who together function as a part of the government, one way we function in the system on checks an balances is to decide who serves in the legislative branch. The third point you brought up wa already addressed.

Just like marriage is not a right that should be recognized by the government, it is also not a right that should be banned by the government.

[Mr. P]

A republic is a form of democracy. The individual voter is a part of the "people", who together function as a part of the government, one way we function in the system on checks an balances is to decide who serves in the legislative branch. The third point you brought up wa already addressed.

Just like marriage is not a right that should be recognized by the government, it is also not a right that should be banned by the government.

So what should or can be banned by Gov. and why?

[Des]

So what should or can be banned by Gov. and why?

Prejudice becoming law.

[Sitarro]

What specific rights that are granted to a married couple(real marriage.... man and woman) are not granted to civil union couples?

What other countries around the world allow homosexuals to steal the word marriage?

[Des]

What specific rights that are granted to a married couple(real marriage.... man and woman) are not granted to civil union couples?

What other countries around the world allow homosexuals to steal the word marriage?

The Defense of Marriage Act (1996) prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits

Same sex couples cannot have either union in the military or receive any benefits a straight couple can.

Not all same sex or civil unions are recognized in every state, meaning that rights may end when state lines are crossed.

[Nukeman]

how does calling it "marriage" harm you in any way?
It harms the "sanctity" of marriage between a "man and a woman". Do you not understand that. I have a moral objection to the term marriage being used for something that is not a true marriage.

It harms me be cheapening MY MARRIAGE. I'm sorry if you don't get or understand that. I would think that someone who professes to be a strong member in their church can not understand someone being MORALLY objected to the term being used.

I would pose the question to you, would you be alright if a group of satanist decided that their satan was in fact Jesus cast out from heaven and started calling themselves Christian, because after all it is what they believe and feel and hell maybe even born that way......????

[darin]

Des didn't like CDC....so here are a few others - showing how the Illness of Homosexuality HURTS society


This study of 1,001 adult homosexual and bisexual men found that 37% reported they had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact with an older or more powerful partner before age 19. Median age at first contact was 10. Ninety-three percent of participants reporting early sexual contact were classified as sexually abused.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ459514&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ459514

(empahsis Mine)


More:





Adult women with a history of childhood sexual abuse show greater evidence of sexual disturbance or dysfunction, homosexual experiences in adolescence or adulthood, depression, and are more likely than nonabused women to be revictimized.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=1544021&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google





This is the first of a two-part report that critically evaluates empirical studies on the short- and long-term effects of child sexual abuse. With the exception of sexualized behavior, the majority of short-term effects noted in the literature are symptoms that characterize child clinical samples in general. Among adolescents, commonly reported sequelae include sexual dissatisfaction, promiscuity, homosexuality, and an increased risk for revictimization.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=1959086&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google




We explored the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among adult gay and bisexual men and measured the association between childhood sexual abuse and high-risk sexual behavior in adulthood. Two separate population-based samples of gay and bisexual men (n = 1,941) residing in Portland and Tucson were surveyed. Over one quarter reported a history of childhood sexual abuse (sexual behavior with someone at least 5 years older prior to age 13, or with someone at least 10 years older when between ages 13 and 15). Men who were abused were more likely to engage in sexual risk behavior than men who were not abused (e.g., unprotected anal intercourse with non-primary partners in the previous 12 months: 21.4% vs. 15.0%, p < .001). Perception of having been coerced was associated with greater sexual risk. Furthermore, childhood sexual abuse and level of coercion were associated with reported levels of HIV infection among gay and bisexual men.

Hmmm. More than one-quarter of gay men reported that they had been sexually abused? That's almost three times the rates of sexual abuse among men in the general population. Isn't anyone noticing what might be an obvious connection here?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q026363653x41g0g/




Where I found these links: http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/labels/child%20sexual%20abuse.html

[Mr. P]

Prejudice becoming law.

Huh? You want that? Why? You really are a kid aren't you? Tell me please, so I know how hard to slap you.

[AlbumAddict]

but your forgetting that by "living in a democracy" they have VOTED, the outcome wasn't to the liking of the homosexual crowd.

IF as you say we live in a DEMOCRACY than the gay/lesbian groups should take the vote in stride and just "deal with it". It is after all the democratic thing to do!!!!

Then women still wouldn't be voting and there would still be "black only" drinking fountains.

[darin]

Uh? What sense does that make, AA?

First off, Homosexuality is a choice. Being BLACK isnt (Micheal Jackson notwithstanding). Secondly - Nukeman said "By the Will of the MAJORITY (of that state) Homos Can't "Marry"...Why is there a problem?

Your reply doesn't match what he wrote, cupcake.

[retiredman]

Uh? What sense does that make, AA?

First off, Homosexuality is a choice. Being BLACK isnt (Micheal Jackson notwithstanding). Secondly - Nukeman said "By the Will of the MAJORITY (of that state) Homos Can't "Marry"...Why is there a problem?

Your reply doesn't match what he wrote, cupcake.

again...you state that homosexuality is a choice as it that were a fact....it is, in FACT, only your opinion.

[stephanie]

Homosexuals already have the same right to marry as everybody else..

but, because they don't like their choices, they wish for us to have to change to accommodate them..

not at this time I guess..maybe they can still carry on their rampaging, that might help change some minds...:eek:

[retiredman]

Homosexuals already have the same right to marry as everybody else..

but, because they don't like their choices, they wish for us to have to change to accommodate them..

not at this time I guess..maybe they can still carry on their rampaging, that might help change some minds...:eek:

again...how do homosexuals marrying one another impact YOUR life?

[Des]

I would pose the question to you, would you be alright if a group of satanist decided that their satan was in fact Jesus cast out from heaven and started calling themselves Christian, because after all it is what they believe and feel and hell maybe even born that way......????

I would be allright with it. I wouldn't be allright if they went to a Christian church and took them hostage until they agreed with them, but there is nothing wrong with a mere difference of belief.

[Des]

[QUOTE=dmp;325071]Des didn't like CDC....so here are a few others - showing how the Illness of Homosexuality HURTS society

I liked CDC just fine, it was you who brought it to my attention. You didn't like it because the information presented doesn't support your views. These articles mean nothing. There have been studies that show as many as 1 in 4 adults, regardless of gender or sexual preference, had been molested. Interpret the results of "studies" as you will, but there are too many factors and not enough of an understanding about human sexuality to know what they mean...especially when so many people have been abused and grew into heterosexual adults.