Group Pushes To ‘Let Bert And Ernie Get Married’ On Sesame Street

[KarlMarx]

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — Will the Children’s Television Workshop give way to same-sex puppet love (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/08/10/group-pushes-to-let-bert-and-ernie-get-married-on-sesame-street/#)?

An online campaign is calling for the producers of TV’s “Sesame Street” to allow characters Bert and Ernie to get married (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/08/10/group-pushes-to-let-bert-and-ernie-get-married-on-sesame-street/#) in an attempt to “put an end to the bullying and suicides of LGBT youth”, according to the group’s Facebook page....

rest of the article at:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/08/10/group-pushes-to-let-bert-and-ernie-get-married-on-sesame-street/

This is what people like me and others on this board have been saying all along. They won't stop once they get the right to marry. They want to indoctrinate children into their way of thinking. The group is also anti-Christian as the article states that the group's Facebook page includes a photo mocking Christians for their disapproval of gay marriage.
2322

[ConHog]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/08/10/group-pushes-to-let-bert-and-ernie-get-married-on-sesame-street/

This is what people like me and others on this board have been saying all along. They won't stop once they get the right to marry. They want to indoctrinate children into their way of thinking. The group is also anti-Christian as the article states that the group's Facebook page includes a photo mocking Christians for their disapproval of gay marriage.
2322


Freedom of speech, they have the right to petition for whatever they want. If the Electric Company wants Bert and Ernie to be queer, that is their right as well. It won't be showing at MY house nor anywhere else that small children in my care might see it, but meh.

[Missileman]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/08/10/group-pushes-to-let-bert-and-ernie-get-married-on-sesame-street/

This is what people like me and others on this board have been saying all along. They won't stop once they get the right to marry. They want to indoctrinate children into their way of thinking. The group is also anti-Christian as the article states that the group's Facebook page includes a photo mocking Christians for their disapproval of gay marriage.
2322

Bert and Ernie are gay? And wtf would a transgender muppet look like?

[Gunny]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/08/10/group-pushes-to-let-bert-and-ernie-get-married-on-sesame-street/

This is what people like me and others on this board have been saying all along. They won't stop once they get the right to marry. They want to indoctrinate children into their way of thinking. The group is also anti-Christian as the article states that the group's Facebook page includes a photo mocking Christians for their disapproval of gay marriage.
2322

So LGBT youths (whatever THAT means) can't quit committing suicide because Bert and Ernie aren't married?:cuckoo:

How f-ing stupid.

[KarlMarx]

Freedom of speech, they have the right to petition for whatever they want. If the Electric Company wants Bert and Ernie to be queer, that is their right as well. It won't be showing at MY house nor anywhere else that small children in my care might see it, but meh.

1. PBS is taxpayer funded. So now a group of gays want the rest of us to pay for them to indoctrinate our kids.
2. Kids see that Bert and Ernie are gay, they grow up thinking that's an acceptable lifestyle. Then in a generation we have them voting for whatever the gays want... all in the name of "inclusiveness" and "tolerance"

I know, the next thing we do is have Maria and Big Bird get married... yeah, that ought to be a smash. Bestiality on Sesame Street... it'll be a riot, Maria can sit on a big egg when she's pregnant.

[ConHog]

1. PBS is taxpayer funded. So now a group of gays want the rest of us to pay for them to indoctrinate our kids.
2. Kids see that Bert and Ernie are gay, they grow up thinking that's an acceptable lifestyle. Then in a generation we have them voting for whatever the gays want... all in the name of "inclusiveness" and "tolerance"

I know, the next thing we do is have Maria and Big Bird get married... yeah, that ought to be a smash. Bestiality on Sesame Street... it'll be a riot, Maria can sit on a big egg when she's pregnant.

I didn't say I agreed with it, nor wanted it. Just don't see it as a big deal.

Except to say that I certainly don't think tax dollars should be spent teaching anyone that being gay is either okay nor not okay.

[OCA]

Enjopy the view folks as Amerika circles farther down the toilet bowl.

[KartRacerBoy]

1. PBS is taxpayer funded. So now a group of gays want the rest of us to pay for them to indoctrinate our kids.
2. Kids see that Bert and Ernie are gay, they grow up thinking that's an acceptable lifestyle. Then in a generation we have them voting for whatever the gays want... all in the name of "inclusiveness" and "tolerance"

I know, the next thing we do is have Maria and Big Bird get married... yeah, that ought to be a smash. Bestiality on Sesame Street... it'll be a riot, Maria can sit on a big egg when she's pregnant.

A small percentage of PBS is taxpayer funded. As to indoctrination, TV or schools do this all the time. They indoctrinate kids with the Pledge of Alllegiance, etc. That's not your problem. You only have a problem wiht indoctrination when you don't agree with the doctrine. I suspect if schools were still having prayer, you wouldn't have a problem with it. At least be honest about it though.

[ConHog]

A small percentage of PBS is taxpayer funded. As to indoctrination, TV or schools do this all the time. They indoctrinate kids with the Pledge of Alllegiance, etc. That's not your problem. You only have a problem wiht indoctrination when you don't agree with the doctrine. I suspect if schools were still having prayer, you wouldn't have a problem with it. At least be honest about it though.

Oh shut up. Don't even try to equate asking your kids to shut up while other kids pray with teachers teaching my kids that gay is normal. They aren't the same.

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh shut up. Don't even try to equate asking your kids to shut up while other kids pray with teachers teaching my kids that gay is normal. They aren't the same.


You're right. Having the public schools indoctrinate my kid in religion is far more offensive. Not to mention unconstitutional.

But my point is that schools indoctrinate kids every day. It's just the agenda that the OP is all pissy about, not the fact that it's indoctrination.

[ConHog]

You're right. Having the public schools indoctrinate my kid in religion is far more offensive. Not to mention unconstitutional.

But my point is that schools indoctrinate kids every day. It's just the agenda that the OP is all pissy about, not the fact that it's indoctrination.

Look little man, asking your kids to be respectfully quiet while OTHERS pray is NOT indoctrinating them with anything but respect. Maybe you don't care if your kids learn respect.............

[KartRacerBoy]

Look little man, asking your kids to be respectfully quiet while OTHERS pray is NOT indoctrinating them with anything but respect. Maybe you don't care if your kids learn respect.............

I'd rather have my kids be respectful of the constitution, but that's just me. And your attempt at wit was funny, but then it always is.

Pray to your god at home. Don't waste my kid's time at school.

[ConHog]

I'd rather have my kids be respectful of the constitution, but that's just me. And your attempt at wit was funny, but then it always is.

Pray to your god at home. Don't waste my kid's time at school.

Good , then teach them the Constitution, not your fucked up reading of it. You have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. IDIOT.


Teach your kid to take it in the ass at home, don't waste my kid's time at school.

[Gunny]

A small percentage of PBS is taxpayer funded. As to indoctrination, TV or schools do this all the time. They indoctrinate kids with the Pledge of Alllegiance, etc. That's not your problem. You only have a problem wiht indoctrination when you don't agree with the doctrine. I suspect if schools were still having prayer, you wouldn't have a problem with it. At least be honest about it though.

Yet another display of brilliance from the pro-gay crowd. Equating reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with indoctrinating children with sexually abnormal behavior.

Anyone who denies indoctrinating children that homosexuality is normal sexual behavior will lead to more homosexuals is a liar and anyone that can't see the obviousness of it is just stupid.

[jimnyc]

They should allow the marriage and let as many kids as possible see it. Then have follow-ups showing them losing their hair and getting paler and thinner as aids sets in. Then have a final episode where they die of aids. Let the kids see the reality of embracing destructive and deviant behavior.

[Gunny]

They should allow the marriage and let as many kids as possible see it. Then have follow-ups showing them losing their hair and getting paler and thinner as aids sets in. Then have a final episode where they die of aids. Let the kids see the reality of embracing destructive and deviant behavior.

What's next? I suppose Laurel & Hardy and Abbot and Costello were gay and the 3 Stooges a gay menage a trois? Time to rewrite the history books. Again.

The very idea that some twisted minds would take something as innocent as a children's puppets to push their agenda and/or indoctrinate young children early with an aberrant lifestyle is despicable.

[revelarts]

And the downward march of western society takes another step to hell.
Maria and Big Bird, No Snuffaloagous and Maria to really get the feel of true bestiality. Sesame Street also Needs to demonstrate sexual activity and the proper method of Auto Asphyxia. So Kids don't accidentally kill themselves. I think The Count, Miss Piggy, Maria and ZOA should ALL get married. to show that POLYGAMY is Normal too. "1... 2... 3 WIVES!!! ah ha hah hahahah ".. Also Gun use, there should be some great songs about the proper use of Guns and Knifes . And what about Smokers, Smokers aren't represented. and HOW ABOUT CHRISTIANS, where are the HARD CORE CHRISTIAN MUPPETS? There are sites that MAKE FUN OF CHRISTIANS ans hurt young Christians feelings. ANd MUSLIMS WHAT ABOUT MUSLIM MUPPETS. "JIhad JiHAD Jing jing jing I like to sing Sing Sing ". WE NEED BALANCE!!! There's a LOT MORE GUN OWNERS, SMOKERS, CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS than gays.

---

The Muppet show is INTENTIONALLY NEUTRAL on most Controversial Subjects.
Some things PARENTS need to teach CHILDREN at home.
And How about this, When gays start having more kids than Straits then they might have a say in what the majority teach them.

DEVIANT IDIOTS.

[KarlMarx]

I'd rather have my kids be respectful of the constitution, but that's just me. And your attempt at wit was funny, but then it always is.

Pray to your god at home. Don't waste my kid's time at school.

Why teach them to be respectful of the Constitution? Liberals like yourself will do anything but. You twist its meaning to suit your purposes. You find the right to kill babies in the punctuation marks of the document, the right for gays to marry in a clause that was supposed to grant protections of laws already on the books to people who weren't being granted them. Whenever a justice is nominated that believes in the doctrine of original intent, you have a stroke, and then there's that clause that you claim states a separation of church and state... when in fact... no such language is in the constitution.

[PostmodernProphet]

shucks, when I was little, Bert and Ernie still had separate beds.....

[KartRacerBoy]

Good , then teach them the Constitution, not your fucked up reading of it. You have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. IDIOT.


Teach your kid to take it in the ass at home, don't waste my kid's time at school.



Ask yiour wife what "caselaw" and "stare decisis" are. And listen to her, Mr. Klansman. For once.

8 years. Really? What a waste of time all those years of college were for you.

[KartRacerBoy]

Why teach them to be respectful of the Constitution? Liberals like yourself will do anything but. You twist its meaning to suit your purposes. You find the right to kill babies in the punctuation marks of the document, the right for gays to marry in a clause that was supposed to grant protections of laws already on the books to people who weren't being granted them. Whenever a justice is nominated that believes in the doctrine of original intent, you have a stroke, and then there's that clause that you claim states a separation of church and state... when in fact... no such language is in the constitution.

You're a constitutional scholar, too? :clap:

Not a well read one apparently. Check your Federalist Papers. Thomas Jefferson. Separation of Church and State. It's funny how you go all cafeteria plan on "original intent."

[ConHog]

You're a constitutional scholar, too? :clap:

Not a well read one apparently. Check your Federalist Papers. Thomas Jefferson. Separation of Church and State. It's funny how you go all cafeteria plan on "original intent."

Are the Federalist Papers part of the COTUS?

You get dumber every day. Oh, and as for your remark about me being a Klansman. I'm neither a Klucker, nor Scottish, so I have no idea what you're babbling about. Just more childish insults from you.


As for your further contention that you know the COTUS better than I do. I'll debate you one on one in ANY aspect of the COTUS any time.


I suspect we better do it soon though, because school is about to be in session, and I HOPE that means earlier bedtimes for you.

[KartRacerBoy]

Are the Federalist Papers part of the COTUS?

You get dumber every day. Oh, and as for your remark about me being a Klansman. I'm neither a Klucker, nor Scottish, so I have no idea what you're babbling about. Just more childish insults from you.


As for your further contention that you know the COTUS better than I do. I'll debate you one on one in ANY aspect of the COTUS any time.


I suspect we better do it soon though, because school is about to be in session, and I HOPE that means earlier bedtimes for you.

Jeez, you're stupid. I referred to the Federalist Papers becz that is a favorite tool of the original intent crowd. You're a historian? Really? And you studied the Constitution for 8 years? Really?

Again, cafeteria plan. :clap:

[Gunny]

Jeez, you're stupid. I referred to the Federalist Papers becz that is a favorite tool of the original intent crowd. You're a historian? Really? And you studied the Constitution for 8 years? Really?

Again, cafeteria plan. :clap:

I'd love to see one of you "original intent", "Destroy the Constitution at any cost" types explain to the FF's how you could pervert their words so badly you've turned any original and real intent into a suicide compact.

Then I REALLY love to see you explain to some of those fine, 18th century gentleman how it's okay to indoctrinate their children that homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior.

Odds are, you be shot before you got across the Mall.

[jimnyc]

If they want the kids to learn about queers, and to show them getting married, will they also teach them that the 2 are engaging in anal sex as part of their deviant lifestyle perversions? If you want to be honest with the kids, don't be hiding the truth from them.

[KartRacerBoy]

I'd love to see one of you "original intent", "Destroy the Constitution at any cost" types explain to the FF's how you could pervert their words so badly you've turned any original and real intent into a suicide compact.

Then I REALLY love to see you explain to some of those fine, 18th century gentleman how it's okay to indoctrinate their children that homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior.

Odds are, you be shot before you got across the Mall.



Wouldn't it be great if society never changed and we all still had to use outhouses since plumbing is change and change is bad?

As to the stupidity of original intent, whose intent are we talking about anyway? All of the writers of COTUS? Just one of them (the one you happen to agree with)? Or do look to the ratifiers of COTUS? Which ratifiers since different delegates had different interpretations of different clauses?

Try reading Pauline Maier's "Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, `1787-1788."

[KartRacerBoy]

If they want the kids to learn about queers, and to show them getting married, will they also teach them that the 2 are engaging in anal sex as part of their deviant lifestyle perversions? If you want to be honest with the kids, don't be hiding the truth from them.

And let's have them portray heterosexual sex, too. But not fellatio or cunniligus becz that's sodomy and illegal in some states. Hope you dont practice those deviant acts, you pervert.

[jimnyc]

And let's have them portray heterosexual sex, too. But not fellatio or cunniligus becz that's sodomy and illegal in some states. Hope you dont practice those deviant acts, you pervert.

I don't perform "illegal" acts, and will readily admit that I do engage in risky behavior from time to time. But I don't want extra rights as a result, I don't run around half naked in parades to tell everyone about it, and I don't scream from the rooftops to be accepted by society. Oh, and my activities don't nearly send as many people to doctors, hospitals and graves as much as caused by queers.

[KartRacerBoy]

I don't perform "illegal" acts, and will readily admit that I do engage in risky behavior from time to time.

So you admit you commit sodomy, you criminal? So your deviant sexual acts are ok but homosexual acts are bad? What's the difference? Both are deviant. Do you just base your judgment on your "ick" factor? On the bible (IIRC, sodomy is a sin in any form)?

[jimnyc]

So you admit you commit sodomy, you criminal? So your deviant sexual acts are ok but homosexual acts are bad? What's the difference? Both are deviant. Do you just base your judgment on your "ick" factor? On the bible (IIRC, sodomy is a sin in any form)?

Did you read what I wrote? First off, I commit no crimes, that I assure you, but what goes on in my bedroom is none of your business. But I admitted that I have engaged in what some would call deviant behavior. But it's not considered to be activities with health risks, I don't demand rights because I've done so, I don't demand society to accept me, I don't bring my sex to the public...

Back to the subject at hand... I think they should have Bert and Ernie create a makeshift NYC gay parade. Bert can wear his chaps while Ernie wears a dress. "I'm here, I'm Queer..." Yup, good 'ol times for the kids!

[Prince Lemon]

Sesame Street is nowadays is a bad show that targets children for GLBT agenda.There was a famous 91 years old faggy designer who worked for this show,Kermit Love,who didn't satisfied of being as a queer himself.He targeted many small kids through this show by teaching them that it is ok to be gay.This old fag is now in Hell.

[Thunderknuckles]

A stupid campaign started by some very stupid people.

[jimnyc]

A stupid campaign started by some very stupid people.

Short and sweet and says it all.

[ConHog]

Jeez, you're stupid. I referred to the Federalist Papers becz that is a favorite tool of the original intent crowd. You're a historian? Really? And you studied the Constitution for 8 years? Really?

Again, cafeteria plan. :clap:



Yes, I'm a historian. That means I recognize the historical importance of the Federalist Papers, but I don't recognize them as being part of or on par with the COTUS. They are not.

[KartRacerBoy]

Did you read what I wrote? First off, I commit no crimes, that I assure you, but what goes on in my bedroom is none of your business. But I admitted that I have engaged in what some would call deviant behavior. But it's not considered to be activities with health risks, I don't demand rights because I've done so, I don't demand society to accept me, I don't bring my sex to the public...

Back to the subject at hand... I think they should have Bert and Ernie create a makeshift NYC gay parade. Bert can wear his chaps while Ernie wears a dress. "I'm here, I'm Queer..." Yup, good 'ol times for the kids!

I see. Don't admit any facts that might hurt your argument, no matter how obvious. How intellectually ingenious. (That's sarcasm, btw).

[ConHog]

I see. Don't admit any facts that might hurt your argument, no matter how obvious. How intellectually ingenious. (That's sarcasm, btw).

What are you babbling about? So far this is is the essence of what I've heard people who are against this on this site say (and actually they've said the same about gays in general).

Gays can do whatever they want in private, they have the right, but they need to keep it to themselves and not being trying to convince me or my kids that it is natural.

So far this is the essence of the pro gay crowd's argument here.

Goddamiit they were born gay and you MUST accept them as normal and equal to yourself, and your children MUST be taught that.


Yep, one side is certainly insane in this argument.

Oh here's another point to ponder. The same exact people who argue that the theory of gayativity should be taught to children because it is natural shriek in terror at the mere thought of God being taught in school when in fact there is NOTHING more natural then believing in a supreme being of some sort. Hypocrite much?

PS I favor keeping God out of school, just making a point there.

[KartRacerBoy]

Yes, I'm a historian. That means I recognize the historical importance of the Federalist Papers, but I don't recognize them as being part of or on par with the COTUS. They are not.

As I already said, I'm merely pointing out the irony of the cafeteria constitutionalists that jump up and down with the Federalist papers when it suits them but ignores them when it doesn't, as in the "separation of church and state" argument.

[ConHog]

As I already said, I'm merely pointing out the irony of the cafeteria constitutionalists that jump up and down with the Federalist papers when it suits them but ignores them when it doesn't, as in the "separation of church and state" argument.

Pointing it out is one thing, accusing me of doing so when in fact I haven't is another.

[KartRacerBoy]

What are you babbling about? So far this is is the essence of what I've heard people who are against this on this site say (and actually they've said the same about gays in general).

Gays can do whatever they want in private, they have the right, but they need to keep it to themselves and not being trying to convince me or my kids that it is natural.

So far this is the essence of the pro gay crowd's argument here.

Goddamiit they were born gay and you MUST accept them as normal and equal to yourself, and your children MUST be taught that.


Yep, one side is certainly insane in this argument.

Oh here's another point to ponder. The same exact people who argue that the theory of gayativity should be taught to children because it is natural shriek in terror at the mere thought of God being taught in school when in fact there is NOTHING more natural then believing in a supreme being of some sort. Hypocrite much?

PS I favor keeping God out of school, just making a point there.


How is the idea of god "natural"? Just becz a majority of people believe in god? That doesn't make it "natural". It just makes it a majority opinion. Again, try LOGIC for a change. I encourage you to try it. You might actually find out it gives you IDEAS (I know it's one of those big one syllable words that seem to hurt you brain, but try it anyway).

[ConHog]

How is the idea of god "natural"? Just becz a majority of people believe in god? That doesn't make it "natural". It just makes it a majority opinion. Again, try LOGIC for a change. I encourage you to try it. You might actually find out it gives you IDEAS (I know it's one of those big one syllable words that seem to hurt you brain, but try it anyway).



More childish insults little man?


I'll tell you what. I've asked you before and you've ignored it, so now I'm going to press the issue. I'd like the mods to split this off into a one on one debate between you and I. Is believing in a supreme being natural? That way not only do we not further derail THIS discussion, but you get further exposed as the poser debater that you are.

Do you have the balls to accept?

[chloe]

How is the idea of god "natural"? Just becz a majority of people believe in god? That doesn't make it "natural". It just makes it a majority opinion. Again, try LOGIC for a change. I encourage you to try it. You might actually find out it gives you IDEAS (I know it's one of those big one syllable words that seem to hurt you brain, but try it anyway).

How is he illogical, God is defined differently by religions and individuals, if someone says God is love and you won't believe love exists as real unless you"see" concrete material evidence of it, it doesn't mean love ain't real, it just means you might be narrow in your expectations of evidence on things.

I don't see why groups need to rally for puppets to portray gay relationships. Have other puppets got married on sesame street bi-racial puppets perhaps?:laugh2:

[KartRacerBoy]

More childish insults little man?


I'll tell you what. I've asked you before and you've ignored it, so now I'm going to press the issue. I'd like the mods to split this off into a one on one debate between you and I. Is believing in a supreme being natural? That way not only do we not further derail THIS discussion, but you get further exposed as the poser debater that you are.

Do you have the balls to accept?

You keep trying to insult me by calling me "little man" and then you get all pissy when I insult you? Really? You're the model of virtue? Don't make me laugh.

There is no proof that there is a god. There is no proof that there is no god. We would only be able to opine.

No, I do not accept. It's a matter of opinion and a pointless argument.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;483543]More childish insults little man?


I'll tell you what. I've asked you before and you've ignored it, so now I'm going to press the issue. I'd like the mods to split this off into a one on one debate between you and I. Is believing in a supreme being natural? That way not only do we not further derail THIS discussion, but you get further exposed as the poser debater that you are.

Do you have the balls to accept?[/QUOTE

There is no proof that there is a god. There is no proof that there is no god. We would only be able to opine.

No, I do not accept. It's a matter of opinion and a pointless argument.

A wise choice on your part little man.

[Abbey Marie]

Enjopy the view folks as Amerika circles farther down the toilet bowl.


Hey M- how are you?

-Golden Abbey

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;483546]

A wise choice on your part little man.

Once again, a retort that ignores all logic. I know you want to debate the existence of god just to jerk off the RW military nut jobs on this site, but I really don't want to help you in that endeavor.

[Abbey Marie]

Let's get back on track here-

Whether or not Bert & Ernie are portrayed as gay doesn't much matter. TV in 2011 is rife with gay characters, married gay characters, etc. And they are ALL portrayed as not only normal, but usually superior to heteros in many ways. The next generation will no doubt see gayness as normal, regardless of Bert & Ernie's marital status.

I believe that what we can do at this point is teach our children at a very young age what we know to be truth, and bring them to a spiritually-vibrant church with a strong youth group. We must also restrict as best we can who they spend time with outside the home. I say this knowing full well that there is no way to fully insulate your children from the culture. They must be given the tools to deal with it all.

And pray.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;483548]

Once again, a retort that ignores all logic. I know you want to debate the existence of god just to jerk off the RW military nut jobs on this site, but I really don't want to help you in that endeavor.

Damn so we can add illiterate to your list of flaws? I didn't say ANYTHING about wanting to argue the existence of God with you fool. What I did say was that I would debate on you whether believing in a god of some sort was natural.


Poor little guy is illiterate.

[Abbey Marie]

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;483559]

Damn so we can add illiterate to your list of flaws? I didn't say ANYTHING about wanting to argue the existence of God with you fool. What I did say was that I would debate on you whether believing in a god of some sort was natural.


Poor little guy is illiterate.

I would suggest that you start another thread with your proposition. Let's try to keep this one more or less on point.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;483567]

I would suggest that you start another thread with your proposition. Let's try to keep this one more or less on point.

I actually offered to. The pussy declined. Preferring instead to just throw out one one post lies.

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=Abbey;483570]

I actually offered to. The pussy declined. Preferring instead to just throw out one one post lies.

An inane debate. And debating you, given your history, on any subject would be inane.

As to whether Burt/Ernie should be portrayed as a homosexual couple, I have no problem with that, but I wonder how the writers would do it. Just say they are married like a few other characters were married on the show? None of the "married" couples ever showed affection on the show, so even if B/E were considered "married," it would merely be a very small bit of background on the show.

My wife and I are friends with a few gay couples. We told my 8 yr old daughter that the people love each other and consider themselves "married" as my wife and I are. Right now, that seems to be the extent of her knowledge on the subject.

[KarlMarx]

You're a constitutional scholar, too? :clap:

Not a well read one apparently. Check your Federalist Papers. Thomas Jefferson. Separation of Church and State. It's funny how you go all cafeteria plan on "original intent."

For your information, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence. He was not in the country when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened.

"While serving in France Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)) in Philadelphia, though he followed the proceedings by correspondence, and was supportive of it."

The Fedralist Papers were written by James Madision, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Where do you find "separation of church and state" in those?

[KartRacerBoy]

For your information, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence. He was not in the country when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened.

"While serving in France Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)) in Philadelphia, though he followed the proceedings by correspondence, and was supportive of it."

The Fedralist Papers were written by James Madision, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Where do you find "separation of church and state" in those?

Ya caught the Tater. Yes, I realized this after I posted. TJ was the guy that coined the " separation of church/state" phrase, I believe, but it wasn't in the Federalist Papers as you correctly note. I'll try to find the source.

But whoever said it, it's a valid point, IMO. Govt shouldn't be picking winners and losers in religion or nonreligion. Right now this country is composed of a christian majority. but what if that changes in 50 years? What if atheists dominate? Or jews or muslims? Would Christians then cry foul if govt promoted those beliefs?

[KarlMarx]

Ya caught the Tater. Yes, I realized this after I posted. TJ was the guy that coined the " separation of church/state" phrase, I believe, but it wasn't in the Federalist Papers as you correctly note. I'll try to find the source.

But whoever said it, it's a valid point, IMO. Govt shouldn't be picking winners and losers in religion or nonreligion. Right now this country is composed of a christian majority. but what if that changes in 50 years? What if atheists dominate? Or jews or muslims? Would Christians then cry foul if govt promoted those beliefs?

Also, the so called "Bill of Rights" i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were added *after* the Constitutional Convention which drafted the US Constitution. Therefore, it is not likely that they would have been discussed in the "Federalist Papers"

The "separation clause" of the First Amendment, as you call it, states that Congress shall not pass a law establishing a religion (meaning no State sanctioned Church, e.g. the Church of England, is allowed, but having nativity sets on public property during Christmas season is).. nor any law curtailing the free exercise of religion (meaning that if a church wishes to preach that homosexuality is an abomination to God and is gravely immoral, debased, and perverted... it can do so)

[KartRacerBoy]

Also, the so called "Bill of Rights" i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were added *after* the Constitutional Convention which drafted the US Constitution. Therefore, it is not likely that they would have been discussed in the "Federalist Papers"

The "separation clause" of the First Amendment, as you call it, states that Congress shall not pass a law establishing a religion (meaning no State sanctioned Church, e.g. the Church of England, is allowed, but having nativity sets on public property during Christmas season is).. nor any law curtailing the free exercise of religion (meaning that if a church wishes to preach that homosexuality is an abomination to God and is gravely immoral, debased, and perverted... it can do so)

Reread. I have not called anything the "separation clause" as if it were part of the 1st Amendment. I referred to a "separation of church/state" phrase which I believe is wise constitutional caselaw doctrine.

I believe that church/state constitutional law is truly awful. I think it is wise that the govt not choose favorites in religion. I would like a very hard barrier between the two. I think separation of church and state is wise doctrine. Unfortunately, the caselaw in this area is horrible and intellectually dishonest. SCOTUS changes its mind as justices leave or join and contradicts itself without explicitly doing so, pretending that they are not contradicting prior law. Sometimes they favor religion and sometimes they don't, but the law is so muddled now that no one can predict what SCOTUS will do next on this topic.

[ConHog]

Reread. I have not called anything the "separation clause" as if it were part of the 1st Amendment. I referred to a "separation of church/state" phrase.

I believe that church/state constitutional law is truly awful. I think it is wise that the govt not choose favorites in religion. I would like a very hard barrier between the two. I think separation of church and state is wise doctrine. Unfortunately, the caselaw in this area is horrible and intellectually dishonest. SCOTUS changes its mind as justices leave or join and contradicts itself without explicitly doing so, pretending that they are not contradicting prior law. Sometimes they favor religion and sometimes they don't, but the law is so muddled now that no one can predict what SCOTUS will do next on this topic.


Once again, the COTUS was intentionally left open to interpretation in SOME areas. THis is proven by the fact that the founders had the foresight to create a judiciary that is tasked with interpretating the document. It irks me when people on either side claim that the SCOTUS is "legislating from the bench" every time a ruling that they don't like is handed down. Funny that most of the time those same people are silent if the decision is one they do like.


You KNOW that no one meant for prayer in school to be illegal when they wrote the first though, that's not even a real issue.

[KartRacerBoy]

Once again, the COTUS was intentionally left open to interpretation in SOME areas. THis is proven by the fact that the founders had the foresight to create a judiciary that is tasked with interpretating the document. It irks me when people on either side claim that the SCOTUS is "legislating from the bench" every time a ruling that they don't like is handed down. Funny that most of the time those same people are silent if the decision is one they do like.


You KNOW that no one meant for prayer in school to be illegal when they wrote the first though, that's not even a real issue.

Marbury vs. Madison. SCOTUS had to GRAB the power to interpret the constitution. To the people of those times, that power wasn't obvious from the Constitution at all. It seems ridiculous to me (otherwise who would be the final arbitrar of consitutional disputes?), but it was a power that the US SCt had to take.

You seem stuck on the school prayer thing. Whatever. However, just becz the vaunted "founding fathers" didn't think of an issue, it doesn't mean that issue isn't a valid one. If you notice, the founding fathers were rather more introspective than most people, but they weren't perfect. Evidence? Electoral college. 'Nuff said. And yes, I know it was a compromise

As you might guess, I'm not a big fan of "original intent" constitutional interpretation. I think Scalia's textualism is more honest (even if the Justice isn't), but both are limited as tools. On the other hand, I also think Lawrence Tribe's "living constitution" doctrine (to the extent he takes it) is frankly crazy. I'm somewhere in between all of them.

[OCA]

They should allow the marriage and let as many kids as possible see it. Then have follow-ups showing them losing their hair and getting paler and thinner as aids sets in. Then have a final episode where they die of aids. Let the kids see the reality of embracing destructive and deviant behavior.

:laugh2::laugh2:

Now that would be reality tv!

[OCA]

If they want the kids to learn about queers, and to show them getting married, will they also teach them that the 2 are engaging in anal sex as part of their deviant lifestyle perversions? If you want to be honest with the kids, don't be hiding the truth from them.

Or they could show Bert one night getting whacked on meth, hooking up for a meet and fuck on a chat room and after getting pounded by a 10 1/2 in. brother going into the local urgent care for some stitch work......................then the HIV.

[Prince Lemon]

A stupid campaign started by some very stupid people. 100% yes and there a zero doubts.

[ConHog]

Or they could show Bert one night getting whacked on meth, hooking up for a meet and fuck on a chat room and after getting pounded by a 10 1/2 in. brother going into the local urgent care for some stitch work......................then the HIV.

Sounds as if you are speaking from bitter experience.........................

[OCA]

sounds as if you are speaking from bitter experience.........................

pwned

[LuvRPgrl]

They should allow the marriage and let as many kids as possible see it. Then have follow-ups showing them losing their hair and getting paler and thinner as aids sets in. Then have a final episode where they die of aids. Let the kids see the reality of embracing destructive and deviant behavior.

That is precisely the entire problem here. Not that its tax supported, not thats its any kind of agenda, THE PROBLEM IS THEY ARE PROMOTING A LIE. A partial truth is as deceitful as a full on lie.

Not to mention, why bring sex into it at all? Let our kids enjoy their innocence while they have it. Making it a homo marriage immediately makes it about sex, WRONG FUC KING TOPIC ON A KIDS SHOW. Im a swinger, my roomate is a gigilo, I think they should have some of those on SStreet also

I want to see people smoking pot, gambling, prostitution,,,,anything and everything AS LONG AS IT ISNT GODLY, CHRISTIAN OR HEALTHY, OH MY , TEACHING KIDS TO RESPECT ELDERS, BE HONEST, DONT LIE,,,HOW FUCKING HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE,,,,,,,,,AWWWWWWWWWW
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMIE,,,,,,,,THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT GOD ON SESAME STREET AGAIN!!!!!

[ConHog]

That is precisely the entire problem here. Not that its tax supported, not thats its any kind of agenda, THE PROBLEM IS THEY ARE PROMOTING A LIE. A partial truth is as deceitful as a full on lie.

Not to mention, why bring sex into it at all? Let our kids enjoy their innocence while they have it. Making it a homo marriage immediately makes it about sex, WRONG FUC KING TOPIC ON A KIDS SHOW. Im a swinger, my roomate is a gigilo, I think they should have some of those on SStreet also

I want to see people smoking pot, gambling, prostitution,,,,anything and everything AS LONG AS IT ISNT GODLY, CHRISTIAN OR HEALTHY, OH MY , TEACHING KIDS TO RESPECT ELDERS, BE HONEST, DONT LIE,,,HOW FUCKING HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE,,,,,,,,,AWWWWWWWWWW
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMIE,,,,,,,,THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT GOD ON SESAME STREET AGAIN!!!!!

Isn't that crazy, that these maroons are trying their best to make God the ONLY taboo subject in this country? LOL

[LuvRPgrl]

Isn't that crazy, that these maroons are trying their best to make God the ONLY taboo subject in this country? LOL

Would one of you pro homos please explain to me exactly WHY getting married is so damn important to them, and then give your supporting reason why its a legit reason.

Society has a compelling interest in marriage. Marriage, regardless of how, where, or what religion or lack of, originated it, it currently and has been a method that the State uses to encourage, build and keep together FAMILIES, WHICH INCLUDE CHILDREN.

Fact of the matter is, children are affected by divorce. A huge % of the time, its a harmful effect.
. One thing alot of people dont realize is that in years gone by, up to the 1970's, you couldnt just nonchalently go and get a divorce. IN fact, divorces were rarely granted unless adulty or physical abuse were involved.
......So, this often made people more careful about whom they married, and very often forced the two adults to "work things out" in which case they managed to solve their problems and go on to have a reasonably happy marriage.
.....I know, I know, often people stayed stuck in a bad marriage, but that was far outweighed by the numbers of marriages that remained intack and eventually flourished.

So, the marriage bond's purpose was to keep families together for the sake of the kids.
If kids didnt need a stable home with a mom and dad as role models to grow up mentally and physically healthy, then the State would simply say, "We don't care about you getting married".
. No, we dont need special considerations for those who are married, like inheirtence, able to visit in hospital, and all those kind of amenities enjoyed only by married couples.
.. Why dont we need those? Please list one reason why we do, and why it is fair/right. Without any interest in marriages suceeding, there is no reason to promote them, and thats what those special laws are designed for, nothing else.
. Married couples should receive no special considerations whatsoever, and the State can simply say, you wanna get married, good luck, go to your local church and do so, but we arent going to get involved.
. but, since the State does have a compelling interest, those special considerations are in effect because it promotes stable homes, and helps to make up for the sacrafices parents make, but singles dont, and it is after all, those who choose to be parents that enable our society to continue at all.

So, why should homos be allowed the PRIVLEDGE of marriage? What compelling interest does the State have in it?
. OK now, homos cannot biologically conceive children, so there is no compelling reason for anyone wanting those unions to stay intack.
....IF the homos want to get married, they can furry down to their local church, and do so.


Religions, Muslims obviously wont do those ceremonies. Jews and Christians wont, if they are true to their religion. And dont give me that bend over backwards, manipulating and bogus extrapolations that "prove" God doesnt consider homosexuality a sin. HE DOES. END OF ISSUE.
. Im not sure of the other religions, but let them follow their choice, just don't take my tax money and use it to promote homos staying together. It really is harmful and flat out Unconstitutional to do so.

. NOT TO MENTION SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THAT, THE STATE CANNOT PROMOTE MARRIAGE, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE PROMOTING PARTICULAR RELIGIONS.

---> me getting off my soapbox. >----l-O

[Missileman]

Would one of you pro homos please explain to me exactly WHY getting married is so damn important to them, and then give your supporting reason why its a legit reason.

Society has a compelling interest in marriage. Marriage, regardless of how, where, or what religion or lack of, originated it, it currently and has been a method that the State uses to encourage, build and keep together FAMILIES, WHICH INCLUDE CHILDREN.

Fact of the matter is, children are affected by divorce. A huge % of the time, its a harmful effect.
. One thing alot of people dont realize is that in years gone by, up to the 1970's, you couldnt just nonchalently go and get a divorce. IN fact, divorces were rarely granted unless adulty or physical abuse were involved.
......So, this often made people more careful about whom they married, and very often forced the two adults to "work things out" in which case they managed to solve their problems and go on to have a reasonably happy marriage.
.....I know, I know, often people stayed stuck in a bad marriage, but that was far outweighed by the numbers of marriages that remained intack and eventually flourished.

So, the marriage bond's purpose was to keep families together for the sake of the kids.
If kids didnt need a stable home with a mom and dad as role models to grow up mentally and physically healthy, then the State would simply say, "We don't care about you getting married".
. No, we dont need special considerations for those who are married, like inheirtence, able to visit in hospital, and all those kind of amenities enjoyed only by married couples.
.. Why dont we need those? Please list one reason why we do, and why it is fair/right. Without any interest in marriages suceeding, there is no reason to promote them, and thats what those special laws are designed for, nothing else.
. Married couples should receive no special considerations whatsoever, and the State can simply say, you wanna get married, good luck, go to your local church and do so, but we arent going to get involved.
. but, since the State does have a compelling interest, those special considerations are in effect because it promotes stable homes, and helps to make up for the sacrafices parents make, but singles dont, and it is after all, those who choose to be parents that enable our society to continue at all.

So, why should homos be allowed the PRIVLEDGE of marriage? What compelling interest does the State have in it?
. OK now, homos cannot biologically conceive children, so there is no compelling reason for anyone wanting those unions to stay intack.
....IF the homos want to get married, they can furry down to their local church, and do so.


Religions, Muslims obviously wont do those ceremonies. Jews and Christians wont, if they are true to their religion. And dont give me that bend over backwards, manipulating and bogus extrapolations that "prove" God doesnt consider homosexuality a sin. HE DOES. END OF ISSUE.
. Im not sure of the other religions, but let them follow their choice, just don't take my tax money and use it to promote homos staying together. It really is harmful and flat out Unconstitutional to do so.

. NOT TO MENTION SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THAT, THE STATE CANNOT PROMOTE MARRIAGE, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE PROMOTING PARTICULAR RELIGIONS.

---> me getting off my soapbox. >----l-O

So in your estimation, it's better for society for gays to maintain a single, promiscuous lifestyle with a multitude of sexual partners than enter into committed monogamous relationships with other individuals?

As for your other tripe about marriage and children...what a load of crap. The state's interest is purely contractual/legal and as an added benefit, they get to TAX marriage by way of a license. The government's interest in children is more accurately portayed in its actions, not in your perceptions. The system encourages single motherhood and increases the rewards with each child.

[OCA]

So in your estimation, it's better for society for gays to maintain a single, promiscuous lifestyle with a multitude of sexual partners than enter into committed monogamous relationships with other individuals?

As for your other tripe about marriage and children...what a load of crap. The state's interest is purely contractual/legal and as an added benefit, they get to TAX marriage by way of a license. The government's interest in children is more accurately portayed in its actions, not in your perceptions. The system encourages single motherhood and increases the rewards with each child.

Queers don't ever really want to get married and be monogamous, the whole culture's foundation is promiscuity: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C141198%2C00.html

[DragonStryk72]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/08/10/group-pushes-to-let-bert-and-ernie-get-married-on-sesame-street/

This is what people like me and others on this board have been saying all along. They won't stop once they get the right to marry. They want to indoctrinate children into their way of thinking. The group is also anti-Christian as the article states that the group's Facebook page includes a photo mocking Christians for their disapproval of gay marriage.
2322

Wait, you're telling me Bert & Ernie AREN'T gay?

[Missileman]

Queers don't ever really want to get married and be monogamous, the whole culture's foundation is promiscuity: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C141198%2C00.html

That's your best evidence...a story about TWO divorces out of THOUSANDS of marriages?

[jimnyc]

They listened to me and stated hell no to the queers! LOL Ok, maybe not like that, but Bert and Ernie are just "friends".

http://news.yahoo.com/sesame-street-says-bert-ernie-just-friends-201920661.html


Sesame Street says Bert and Ernie just friends
The popular children's program Sesame Street on Friday put to rest rumors that odd couple roommates Bert and Ernie are gay, saying the puppets are just "best friends" and would not marry.

"Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves," the public television program said in a statement.

"Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation."

[Missileman]

They listened to me and stated hell no to the queers! LOL Ok, maybe not like that, but Bert and Ernie are just "friends".

http://news.yahoo.com/sesame-street-says-bert-ernie-just-friends-201920661.html

Common sense wins occasionally.

[jimnyc]

Common sense wins occasionally.

True 'dat! I have no problem with just not covering sexual identity within cartoons. They made a wise choice making everyone happy.

[Prince Lemon]

I just wander if I read the story about creation of Sesame Street show.I forgot,was this show a part of Jim Henson's creation? Jim Henson was famous on creating Kermit The Frog and Ms Piggy,also a muppet film,The Dark Chrystal in the early 80s.

[ConHog]

KartBoy and JT are in mourning today. They thought they finally found their puppet idols.

[KartRacerBoy]

KartBoy and JT are in mourning today. They thought they finally found their puppet idols.

Wrong again. You were already my puppet idol, Conhog. Someone has to have a hand up your ass to make you say the dumbass things that spew from you.

[LuvRPgrl]

So in your estimation, it's better for society for gays to maintain a single, promiscuous lifestyle with a multitude of sexual partners than enter into committed monogamous relationships with other individuals?

As for your other tripe about marriage and children...what a load of crap. The state's interest is purely contractual/legal and as an added benefit, they get to TAX marriage by way of a license. The government's interest in children is more accurately portayed in its actions, not in your perceptions. The system encourages single motherhood and increases the rewards with each child.

Really?? Do you have any idea how easy it is to refute your erroneous statements?
OH I GUESS NOT.

When did I say it was BETTER?
It doesnt really matter to the State if they go into a commited relationship or not. Its simple enough for them to do so. Please tell me, what COMPELLING interest is there for the State to see them married?

Purely contractual? Why bother then if they dont want to help kids grow up healthy? I mean, please tell me a reason the State would have a COMPELLING INTEREST in marriage.
Your last staement is pathetically boring.

OH YES IT IS !!!!

[Missileman]

When did I say it was BETTER?
It doesnt really matter to the State if they go into a commited relationship or not. Its simple enough for them to do so. Please tell me, what COMPELLING interest is there for the State to see them married?

Do you agree it's better for society for gays to be monogamous or not?





Purely contractual? Why bother then if they dont want to help kids grow up healthy? I mean, please tell me a reason the State would have a COMPELLING INTEREST in marriage.
Your last staement is pathetically boring.

OH YES IT IS !!!!


There's no fertility test required to get a marriage license. The state could give a shit whether you have kids or not. And none of your post addresses the fact that the state encourages single motherhood, so apparently, the state doesn't share your OPINION that marriage is required to have healthy kids.

[fj1200]

Would one of you pro homos please explain to me exactly WHY getting married is so damn important to them, and then give your supporting reason why its a legit reason.

Society has a compelling interest in marriage. Marriage, regardless of how, where, or what religion or lack of, originated it, it currently and has been a method that the State uses to encourage, build and keep together FAMILIES, WHICH INCLUDE CHILDREN.

The compelling interest that you profess is gone. Do you know how easy it is for a lesbian couple to have a child? Hint, they have the most important part and damn if I haven't thought about helping them along a time or two. :laugh: In my neighborhood there are countless lesbian couples with kids, two of my sons classmates, out of 20, fall into that category, and if you think we need to support marriage to support families and children then friend, you are FOR gay marriage.


Fact of the matter is, children are affected by divorce. A huge % of the time, its a harmful effect.
...

Not sure how divorce fits into this argument.


So, the marriage bond's purpose was to keep families together for the sake of the kids.
If kids didnt need a stable home with a mom and dad as role models to grow up mentally and physically healthy, then the State would simply say, "We don't care about you getting married".
. No, we dont need special considerations for those who are married, like inheirtence, able to visit in hospital, and all those kind of amenities enjoyed only by married couples.
.. Why dont we need those? Please list one reason why we do, and why it is fair/right. Without any interest in marriages suceeding, there is no reason to promote them, and thats what those special laws are designed for, nothing else.
. Married couples should receive no special considerations whatsoever, and the State can simply say, you wanna get married, good luck, go to your local church and do so, but we arent going to get involved.
. but, since the State does have a compelling interest, those special considerations are in effect because it promotes stable homes, and helps to make up for the sacrafices parents make, but singles dont, and it is after all, those who choose to be parents that enable our society to continue at all.

Compelling interest proven above, are you agreeing with CH and me that the state shouldn't be involved? :confused:


So, why should homos be allowed the PRIVLEDGE of marriage? What compelling interest does the State have in it?
. OK now, homos cannot biologically conceive children, so there is no compelling reason for anyone wanting those unions to stay intack.
....IF the homos want to get married, they can furry down to their local church, and do so.

Lesbians can biologically and gay men can adopt (although I don't know the exact process).


. NOT TO MENTION SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THAT, THE STATE CANNOT PROMOTE MARRIAGE, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE PROMOTING PARTICULAR RELIGIONS.

---> me getting off my soapbox. >----l-O

The state can create civil unions which should be the extent of their involvement IMO.

[logroller]

This thread seems similar to a number of previous threads, so I only got through about half of the responses; please forgive me if this was already mentioned, but I thought it was worth posting Sesame Street's response.


Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets™ do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.



Not sure how divorce fits into this argument.

The better question is how it fits into anti-gay marriage arguments. Traditional marriage has been destroyed through no-fault divorce. Saying gay marriage is the final straw is a bit like saying somebody smoking a cigarette as a plane crashes into the ground was complicit in the ensuing fire. Any compelling govt interest in marriage is long gone IMO. I would prefer it to be otherwise, but the facts simply don't support any alternative other than...


The state can create civil unions which should be the extent of their involvement IMO.

As such, I second the motion.

[fj1200]

All in favor???

[LuvRPgrl]

Do you agree it's better for society for gays to be monogamous or not?.who cares.







There's no fertility test required to get a marriage license. The state could give a shit whether you have kids or not. And none of your post addresses the fact that the state encourages single motherhood, so apparently, the state doesn't share your OPINION that marriage is required to have healthy kids.

Yea, and the state encourages people to get high school educations too, so what?

[ConHog]

All in favor???

I have said this for years. Marriage is a religious term. Government get OUT of it.


Truly odd that the very people who cry separation of church and state when someone mentions God suddenly want the state to recognize THEIR religious ceremony.

[logroller]

It doesnt really matter to the State if they go into a commited relationship or not. Its simple enough for them to do so. Please tell me, what COMPELLING interest is there for the State to see them married?
I think you overlook the obvious rule of law--it must apply to everyone!!!
With that said, what compelling interest does the state have in seeing anyone or everyone married? It sounds to me like you support abolishing state marriage, am I correct?


Purely contractual? Why bother then if they dont want to help kids grow up healthy? I mean, please tell me a reason the State would have a COMPELLING INTEREST in marriage.


I assume here you are referring to the oft misquoted study by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf), which found the nuclear family had healthier children; but understand it defined nuclear family as 'one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family'

It drew a dichotomy between nuclear vs non-, and not the sex of the parents. Furthermore, if you read through the findings, you'd find that not being married (single-parent, blended and especially cohabitating partners and others like grandparents or non biologic or adoptive parents) shows greater incidence of forgone healthcare of children due to costs. SO by that rationale, everyone should get married and nobody should be allowed to divorce-- for the good of the kids. I'd support that.

[Abbey Marie]

So in your estimation, it's better for society for gays to maintain a single, promiscuous lifestyle with a multitude of sexual partners than enter into committed monogamous relationships with other individuals?
...


Are you saying that a couple cannot be monogamous and committed unless they are married?

[Gunny]

Are you saying that a couple cannot be monogamous and committed unless they are married?

Only if they're gay. Otherwise, I'm s-o-o-o in trouble with the GF.:laugh:

[Missileman]

Are you saying that a couple cannot be monogamous and committed unless they are married?

No, but no one can argue that the formality of marriage and threat of divorce aren't deterrents to cheating. Besides, if commitment isn't a benefit of marriage, then why have straight couples marry?

[Abbey Marie]

No, but no one can argue that the formality of marriage and threat of divorce aren't deterrents to cheating. Besides, if commitment isn't a benefit of marriage, then why have straight couples marry?

True point, but not enough imo to argue that gays should marry so they too can be committed and monogamous.

[LuvRPgrl]

No, but no one can argue that the formality of marriage and threat of divorce aren't deterrents to cheating. Besides, if commitment isn't a benefit of marriage, then why have straight couples marry?

assuming I have no interpersonal relations with the following people:

Bob and Mary live next door. They have three kids, I would do almost anything that would help them raise those kids and keep their marriage healthy.

Mr and Mrs Homo live on the other side, I could care less if they stay together or not.

[fj1200]

Mr and Mrs Homo live on the other side, I could care less if they stay together or not.

Do they have kids? If so, there's your compelling interest.

[LuvRPgrl]

[/B]
I think you overlook the obvious rule of law--it must apply to everyone!!!
With that said, what compelling interest does the state have in seeing anyone or everyone married? It sounds to me like you support abolishing state marriage, am I correct?.
even though it is a seperate point, the law does apply equally.
YYou didnt read all my post (understandable) but my reasons are in it.




[/I assume here you are referring to the oft misquoted study by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf), which found the nuclear family had healthier children; but understand it defined nuclear family as 'one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family'

It drew a dichotomy between nuclear vs non-, and not the sex of the parents. Furthermore, if you read through the findings, you'd find that not being married (single-parent, blended and especially cohabitating partners and others like grandparents or non biologic or adoptive parents) shows greater incidence of forgone healthcare of children due to costs. SO by that rationale, everyone should get married and nobody should be allowed to divorce-- for the good of the kids. I'd support that.

Homos cant produce kids.
Yea, I think divorce laws should get more stringent.
We are wholesale destroying our kids out of selfish greed.
WHEN YOU HAVE A KID YOU MAKE THE COMMITMENT TO RAISE THE, TAKE CARE OF THEM, LOVE THEM AND MAKE SACRAFICES FOR THEM.
People split up today because they dont like the way the other one clips their toenails. Or they "just arent in love anymore".

But regardless, the divorce issue is a seperate issue.

[LuvRPgrl]

Do they have kids? If so, there's your compelling interest.

First, I disagree that they should be raising kids.
Second, what percentage of kids are in homo households?

[fj1200]

First, I disagree that they should be raising kids.
Second, what percentage of kids are in homo households?

First, you can't stop it or do you propose government power granting child-rearing licenses?
Second, not the point.

[ConHog]

First, you can't stop it or do you propose government power granting child-rearing licenses?
Second, not the point.

Not a bad idea, there are quite a few "parents" who have no business being parents.

[Missileman]

Homos cant produce kids.

Gays aren't sterile you imbecile. They most certainly can produce children...just not with each other.

[LuvRPgrl]

Gays aren't sterile you imbecile. They most certainly can produce children...just not with each other.

Yep, and if they have a baby with a female, then I would support their marriage.

[fj1200]

Not a bad idea, there are quite a few "parents" who have no business being parents.

That's quite the length to which you would take your beliefs.

[LuvRPgrl]

First, you can't stop it or do you propose government power granting child-rearing licenses?
Second, not the point.

The insignifacant number makes it relevant.

Society sets standards for kids going into adoption and/or foster homes.

[ConHog]

That's quite the length to which you would take your beliefs.

That was meant to be taken sarcastically.

[fj1200]

The insignifacant number makes it relevant.

Society sets standards for kids going into adoption and/or foster homes.

Freedom to make choices is not irrelevant.

Gays are adopting and lesbians are procreating, nothing you can do to stop it. So why not encourage a healthy, stable living environment for the kids.


That was meant to be taken sarcastically.

Sorry, I misattributed it to someone else in my head.

[ConHog]

Freedom to make choices is not irrelevant.

Gays are adopting and lesbians are procreating, nothing you can do to stop it. So why not encourage a healthy, stable living environment for the kids.



Sorry, I misattributed it to someone else in my head.

No worries. I mean conceptually it DOES sound great to tell people they can't have kids if they aren't fit, but that's quite a bite into personal freedom, and one I'm probably not inclined to take.

[logroller]

Would one of you pro homos please explain to me exactly WHY getting married is so damn important to them, and then give your supporting reason why its a legit reason.
I'm not pro-homo. And quite frankly I can't explain why marriage is important to anyone but myself; but that's the point isn't it? It's an individual freedom, unique to each person (even between spouses) and accompanies the myriad of choices which make one happy or miserable and you can't very well tell me what marriage is meant to be for me, nor I you.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not pro-homo. And quite frankly I can't explain why marriage is important to anyone but myself; but that's the point isn't it? It's an individual freedom, unique to each person (even between spouses) and accompanies the myriad of choices which make one happy or miserable and you can't very well tell me what marriage is meant to be for me, nor I you.

Well, you can discover the main reason they SAY they want mariage, and then you can figure out the REAL reasons.

And, it is NOT a right. Its a privledge, like a drivers license.

[LuvRPgrl]

Freedom to make choices is not irrelevant..
I never said it was.


Gays are adopting and lesbians are procreating, nothing you can do to stop it. So why not encourage a healthy, stable living environment for the kids.



Sorry, I misattributed it to someone else in my head.

[logroller]

Well, you can discover the main reason they SAY they want mariage, and then you can figure out the REAL reasons.

And, it is NOT a right. Its a privledge, like a drivers license.

gays can get driver's licenses, so why can't they get married?

I need not discover anything, I don't rightly care why they or you or anyone else wants to get married. None of my business, quite frankly. If I told you I wanted to get married because I wanted to establish a legal ownership of my wife and kids, I'd be free to do so-- and that is the historic foundation of traditional marriage. But in the interest of speculating, I'm guessing you mean some sort of tax break or some other perk like dependent healthcare-- So what, I don't care if they get those benefits. Yes its a privilege to get them, but I dont see how a few thousand queers getting married would hold a candle to the number of marriages of convenience already getting those benefits. What's next, marriage police? "Sorry sir, you not living according to the ideals of marriage; your's is now void."

I understand why people don't want it, it's because people think gays getting married is an affront to the sanctity of their marriage. I kind of feel this way too, but I can't honestly say what two people do in their marriage affects what I do in my mine, at least not negatively. If anything, gay marriage has brought the benefits of traditional marriage to the forefront of the society; which isn't a bad thing at all. I'd say it has caused many to reevaluate what marriage is intended to do: protect a family's freedom to provide for it's own comfort and safety. That's it. Not to have govt support one value over another in the interest of a healthier society. I call bullshit!

Besides, I don't need govt protecting my family; all I need is the good Lord and gun. So, telling me DOMA protects families is farcical. That's just what people use to justify oppressing somebody, a socialist strategy which is all too commonplace in our government, and it concerns me to see good conservatives engaged in the same practice. Which leads me to the nexus of all policy discussion--What's the purpose of laws infringing upon privileges and rights? You can't take someone's rights except to protect another's. Similarly, you can't tell one person they can't earn a privilege unless they pose a risk to another, as is the case in driving. But there isn't a marriage test, because the safety and security of my marriage doesn't impact yours. Likewise, homo marriage doesn't impact, in any tangible sense, the sanctity of my marriage or anyone else's-- that's just a chickenshit way for someone to put themselves above another. Some people, maybe a lot, don't like what they do and want a legal means of adding credence to a certain type of familial unit-- and that sir, is not equality, it's bigotry, plain and simple. All kinds of perverts and miscreants with compatible genitals get married, so that's cool-- just don't let the fags do it!

[LuvRPgrl]

gays can get driver's licenses, so why can't they get married?,!
Irrelevant


FIRST YOU SAY:

I need not discover anything, I don't rightly care why they or you or anyone else wants to get married. None of my business]I'm not pro-homo. And quite frankly I can't explain why marriage is important to anyone but myself; but that's the point isn't it?,and you can't very well tell me what marriage is meant to be for me, nor I you.![/QUOTE]

THEN YOU SAY:

![/, I understand why people don't want it, it's because people think gays getting married is an affront to the sanctity of their marriage. I kind of feel this way too,!


So, we cant question homos motives, but you can question ours?

[LuvRPgrl]

gays can get driver's licenses, so why can't they get married?

I need not discover anything, I don't rightly care why they or you or anyone else wants to get married. None of my business, quite frankly. If I told you I wanted to get married because I wanted to establish a legal ownership of my wife and kids, I'd be free to do so-- and that is the historic foundation of traditional marriage. But in the interest of speculating, I'm guessing you mean some sort of tax break or some other perk like dependent healthcare-- So what, I don't care if they get those benefits. Yes its a privilege to get them, but I dont see how a few thousand queers getting married would hold a candle to the number of marriages of convenience already getting those benefits. What's next, marriage police? "Sorry sir, you not living according to the ideals of marriage; your's is now void."!

Im not using the answer to support my posistion in any way whatsoever. Its simply a sincere question. No need to argue against it. I think it can be answered.


I understand why people don't want it, it's because people think gays getting married is an affront to the sanctity of their marriage!
IRRELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND,,, AND WRONG BESIDES.



.
I kind of feel this way too, but I can't honestly say what two people do in their marriage affects what I do in my mine, at least not negatively.!
NEVER SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT.


If anything, gay marriage has brought the benefits of traditional marriage to the forefront of the society;... ... I'd say it has caused many to reevaluate what marriage is intended to do: protect a family's freedom to provide for it's own comfort and safety. That's it. Not to have govt support one value over another in the interest of a healthier society. I call bullshit!!
Well, thats an interesting opinion. It didnt need to be brought to the forefront. How does marriage protect a family's freedom and safety."


Besides, I don't need govt protecting my family; all I need is the good Lord and gun. So, telling me DOMA protects families is farcica!

l[QUOTE=logroller;484761]. I never said you need govt to protect your family.


[QUOTE=logroller;484761]That's just what people use to justify oppressing somebody, a socialist strategy which is all too commonplace in our government, and it concerns me to see good conservatives engaged in the same practice!
Once again you are assigning motive, which is 1. Irrelevant, 2 Something you said you cant do.


. Which leads me to the nexus of all policy discussion--What's the purpose of laws infringing upon privileges and rights?!
Again they are not rights.

. You can't take someone's rights except to protect another's. Similarly, you can't tell one person they can't earn a privilege unless they pose a risk to another!

r
, as is the case in driving. But there isn't a marriage test, because the safety and security of my marriage doesn't impact yours. Likewise, homo marriage doesn't impact, in any tangible sense, the sanctity of my marriage or anyone else's-- that's just a chickenshit way for someone to put themselves above another.!
Again, irrelevant, since marriage is for something, and not allowing the privledge to someone isnt a way to provide any protection, it simply isnt the reason for having marriage. Why should a homo who gets married, get a tax break or some other govt benefit, whereas a single person doesnt?


Some people, maybe a lot, don't like what they do and want a legal means of adding credence to a certain type of familial unit-- and that sir, is not equality, it's bigotry, plain and simple. All kinds of perverts and miscreants with compatible genitals get married, so that's cool-- just don't let the fags do it!
No, our society is tolerant of homos, that proves they arent doing it because they dont like what they do, otherwise they would have opposed other "rights" homos have gotten recently, but BEFORE the marriage think became an issue.

[ConHog]

I need not discover anything, I don't rightly care why they or you or anyone else wants to get married. None of my business, quite frankly. If I told you I wanted to get married because I wanted to establish a legal ownership of my wife and kids, I'd be free to do so-- and that is the historic foundation of traditional marriage. But in the interest of speculating, I'm guessing you mean some sort of tax break or some other perk like dependent healthcare-- So what, I don't care if they get those benefits. Yes its a privilege to get them, but I dont see how a few thousand queers getting married would hold a candle to the number of marriages of convenience already getting those benefits. What's next, marriage police? "Sorry sir, you not living according to the ideals of marriage; your's is now void."

I understand why people don't want it, it's because people think gays getting married is an affront to the sanctity of their marriage. I kind of feel this way too, but I can't honestly say what two people do in their marriage affects what I do in my mine, at least not negatively. If anything, gay marriage has brought the benefits of traditional marriage to the forefront of the society; which isn't a bad thing at all. I'd say it has caused many to reevaluate what marriage is intended to do: protect a family's freedom to provide for it's own comfort and safety. That's it. Not to have govt support one value over another in the interest of a healthier society. I call bullshit!

Besides, I don't need govt protecting my family; all I need is the good Lord and gun. So, telling me DOMA protects families is farcical. That's just what people use to justify oppressing somebody, a socialist strategy which is all too commonplace in our government, and it concerns me to see good conservatives engaged in the same practice. Which leads me to the nexus of all policy discussion--What's the purpose of laws infringing upon privileges and rights? You can't take someone's rights except to protect another's. Similarly, you can't tell one person they can't earn a privilege unless they pose a risk to another, as is the case in driving. But there isn't a marriage test, because the safety and security of my marriage doesn't impact yours. Likewise, homo marriage doesn't impact, in any tangible sense, the sanctity of my marriage or anyone else's-- that's just a chickenshit way for someone to put themselves above another. Some people, maybe a lot, don't like what they do and want a legal means of adding credence to a certain type of familial unit-- and that sir, is not equality, it's bigotry, plain and simple. All kinds of perverts and miscreants with compatible genitals get married, so that's cool-- just don't let the fags do it!

Same reason blind people can't drive. Society has deemed it dangerous. Just to be devil's advocate.

[chloe]

Sunny Day
Sweepin' the clouds away
On my way to where the air is sweet

Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to Sesame Street

Come and play
Everything's A-OK
Friendly neighbors there
That's where we meet

Can you tell me how to get
How to get to Sesame Street

It's a magic carpet ride
Every door will open wide
:laugh2:To Happy people like you--
Happy people like
What a beautiful

Sunny Day
Sweepin' the clouds away
On my way to where the air is sweet

Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to Sesame street...
How to get to Sesame Street
How to get to...



LXqMzmFSX_4