That was her point.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gay marriage
- Thread starter Semper Fi
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
That was her point.
Trinity
VIP Member
- Jun 16, 2004
- 1,286
- 79
- 83
Isn't same-sex "marriage" the new civil right?
Absolutely not. Miscegenation (interracial) laws were about keeping the races apart; marriage is about bringing the sexes together. Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman to give children the best start. The Federal Marriage Amendment is intended to send our children positive messages about marriage and family not to oppress or discriminate.
If any group in this country understands what violates civil rights, it would be African-Americans; yet the vast majority of African-Americans strongly oppose same-sex marriage. Well-known leaders in the civil rights movement of the 1960's reject the notion that the fight for legally-recognized homosexual unions has any moral equivalence to the African-American struggle for basic human rights.
According to Jesse Jackson, Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote. The Rev. Richard Richardson has said The defense of marriage is not about discrimination. As an African-American, I know something about discrimination .The institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws against interracial marriage, was about discrimination. The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was created for children. It boggles my mind that people would compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery.
How does someone's homosexual marriage threaten the rest of us?
Gay activists are not asking for just one homosexual marriage, even though they often say, Don't interfere with my family and I won't interfere with yours. What the activists want is a new national policy saying that no longer is a mom and a dad any better than two moms or two dads. That policy would turn some very important principles upside down.
Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17? Polygamy and group marriage would be virtually impossible to prevent.
Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. Mother and father would become only words.
Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes. If real differences did exist, men would need women and women would need men. Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types.
Marriage is not just a private affair. Every marriage is a public virtue in that it responsibly regulates human sexuality, brings the two parts of humanity together in a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship and it delivers mothers and fathers to children. Society benefits from the well-being of marriage; nearly every dollar spent by our government on social welfare is in reaction to a marriage breaking down or failing to form.
Allowing same-sex "marriage" would drastically weaken the institution of marriage for everyone, including those in traditional marriages. Stanley Kurtz, in his Feb. 2, 2004 Weekly Standard article entitled, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia," documents how 10 years of same-sex "marriage" in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have further undermined marriage in those countries. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. (Weekly Standard, Vol. 9, No. 20, Kurtz, p. 26)
Perhaps most important of all, homosexual marriage will hurt our children, because homosexual unions deliberately deny a child either a mother or a father. Social science research is conclusive that children without a married mom and dad suffer significantly. They have higher levels of poverty, welfare dependency, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, educational failure, juvenile delinquency, adult criminality and suicide as well as lower levels of physical and emotional health.
Upholding traditional marriage is about justice for children. Children do not have the ability to protect themselves from family arrangements which deliberately deny them a mother or a father. Homosexual marriage places adult desire above the best interest of children, which the government has a special responsibility to uphold.
The Federal Marriage Amendment will preserve traditional marriage, therefore protecting the best interests of children.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0024645.cfm
Absolutely not. Miscegenation (interracial) laws were about keeping the races apart; marriage is about bringing the sexes together. Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman to give children the best start. The Federal Marriage Amendment is intended to send our children positive messages about marriage and family not to oppress or discriminate.
If any group in this country understands what violates civil rights, it would be African-Americans; yet the vast majority of African-Americans strongly oppose same-sex marriage. Well-known leaders in the civil rights movement of the 1960's reject the notion that the fight for legally-recognized homosexual unions has any moral equivalence to the African-American struggle for basic human rights.
According to Jesse Jackson, Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote. The Rev. Richard Richardson has said The defense of marriage is not about discrimination. As an African-American, I know something about discrimination .The institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws against interracial marriage, was about discrimination. The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was created for children. It boggles my mind that people would compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery.
How does someone's homosexual marriage threaten the rest of us?
Gay activists are not asking for just one homosexual marriage, even though they often say, Don't interfere with my family and I won't interfere with yours. What the activists want is a new national policy saying that no longer is a mom and a dad any better than two moms or two dads. That policy would turn some very important principles upside down.
Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17? Polygamy and group marriage would be virtually impossible to prevent.
Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. Mother and father would become only words.
Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes. If real differences did exist, men would need women and women would need men. Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types.
Marriage is not just a private affair. Every marriage is a public virtue in that it responsibly regulates human sexuality, brings the two parts of humanity together in a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship and it delivers mothers and fathers to children. Society benefits from the well-being of marriage; nearly every dollar spent by our government on social welfare is in reaction to a marriage breaking down or failing to form.
Allowing same-sex "marriage" would drastically weaken the institution of marriage for everyone, including those in traditional marriages. Stanley Kurtz, in his Feb. 2, 2004 Weekly Standard article entitled, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia," documents how 10 years of same-sex "marriage" in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have further undermined marriage in those countries. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. (Weekly Standard, Vol. 9, No. 20, Kurtz, p. 26)
Perhaps most important of all, homosexual marriage will hurt our children, because homosexual unions deliberately deny a child either a mother or a father. Social science research is conclusive that children without a married mom and dad suffer significantly. They have higher levels of poverty, welfare dependency, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, educational failure, juvenile delinquency, adult criminality and suicide as well as lower levels of physical and emotional health.
Upholding traditional marriage is about justice for children. Children do not have the ability to protect themselves from family arrangements which deliberately deny them a mother or a father. Homosexual marriage places adult desire above the best interest of children, which the government has a special responsibility to uphold.
The Federal Marriage Amendment will preserve traditional marriage, therefore protecting the best interests of children.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0024645.cfm
Captain_Steel
Member
I have no problems with gays, as long as they don't invade my personal space or try to get fresh with me.
But marriage is between a man and a woman. It's always been that way for 1000's of years. I mean, what we're suppossed to change that now all of a sudden?
If gays could get married it would devalue marriage, and make a mockery of it.
But marriage is between a man and a woman. It's always been that way for 1000's of years. I mean, what we're suppossed to change that now all of a sudden?
If gays could get married it would devalue marriage, and make a mockery of it.
mattskramer
Senior Member
Are you going to personally make sure these children are not teased and ridiculed by bigots?
No. That would be virtually impossible to do. There are simply too many such people around. Children will encounter ignorant prejudicial bigots practically everywhere and it would be doing children a disservice to insulate children completely. For, if they are insulated as children, when they face the "real world" as unprotected adults, they will likely be surprised to see such people.
The best advise I would give to children is to let them know that the relationship (perceived as good or bad / right or wrong by society) that their parents have is not due to the child or a reflection of the child. Also, the ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry is a problem for the other people to resolve for themselves. It is their "hang ups" and not that of the child.
Half-breeds and children of parents with different religions faced difficulties and ridicule. Home-schooled children used to be seen as "different". I have met several who felt ostracized. In time, thanks in large part to experience and understanding among people in the general public, such prejudices had eased. So it will be with children of homosexual couples.
So obviously you do not have children or you would understand the role of father figure. I have several friends who are divorced from their husbands and yes these children are suffering without that father figure in their life on a daily basis. They are suffering in school, and they are suffering in social issues. I also know of 2 gay men who both have children from previous wifes. these children are also suffering i have had in depth conversations with them they are not proud of their ( fathers) they are very unhappy disturbed children they are having difficulties in academics and social issues as well, such as friends, over eating. I feel very sorry for these children because unfortunatly they were throw in to this situation with no choice in the matter what so ever. So are these children going to grow up and be healthy contributing adults in society? I doubt it.
I like the way you dodged my question. My comment about my not having children was in reply to a comment about the purpose of marriage being the raising of children. Will you answer my question? Should those who are infertile or those who choose not to have children be allowed to get married? If the answer is "yes" then the argument about marriage being for the raising of children is irrelevant at best.
No. I don't understand the role of a father figure. Why don't you explain it to me in concrete terms and explain why it is needed? Those children who supposedly suffered because of not having a father figure probably suffered because of societal expectation. They are not proud of their "fathers" because of the negative attitudes they get from bigoted heterosexuals. If the children were taught about how much the "fathers" loved and cared for them, their pride in their fathers would likely change. If they were adopted, it could be explained that they were really wanted and not born by accident (which is so often the case with heterosexual relationships).
They are "supposed to" have father figures according to society. As I said before, if the parents think that the child needs a father figure, there are ways to expose the child to father figures. Do you claim that heterosexual couples should remain married "for the sake of the children" no matter what the physical and emotional condition of the marriage? Should violent and dysfunctional couples stay together. I have seen traumatized children from such marriages. I have even heard a despicable father say that it doesn't matter how harsh and demanding he is with his family. His wife is to obey him and stay with him because God and the Bible say so. The children see this attitude.
Anyway, the bottom line is that if treated will, children from homosexual couples can grow to be healthy and happy adults contributing to society.
No. That would be virtually impossible to do. There are simply too many such people around. Children will encounter ignorant prejudicial bigots practically everywhere and it would be doing children a disservice to insulate children completely. For, if they are insulated as children, when they face the "real world" as unprotected adults, they will likely be surprised to see such people.
The best advise I would give to children is to let them know that the relationship (perceived as good or bad / right or wrong by society) that their parents have is not due to the child or a reflection of the child. Also, the ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry is a problem for the other people to resolve for themselves. It is their "hang ups" and not that of the child.
Half-breeds and children of parents with different religions faced difficulties and ridicule. Home-schooled children used to be seen as "different". I have met several who felt ostracized. In time, thanks in large part to experience and understanding among people in the general public, such prejudices had eased. So it will be with children of homosexual couples.
So obviously you do not have children or you would understand the role of father figure. I have several friends who are divorced from their husbands and yes these children are suffering without that father figure in their life on a daily basis. They are suffering in school, and they are suffering in social issues. I also know of 2 gay men who both have children from previous wifes. these children are also suffering i have had in depth conversations with them they are not proud of their ( fathers) they are very unhappy disturbed children they are having difficulties in academics and social issues as well, such as friends, over eating. I feel very sorry for these children because unfortunatly they were throw in to this situation with no choice in the matter what so ever. So are these children going to grow up and be healthy contributing adults in society? I doubt it.
I like the way you dodged my question. My comment about my not having children was in reply to a comment about the purpose of marriage being the raising of children. Will you answer my question? Should those who are infertile or those who choose not to have children be allowed to get married? If the answer is "yes" then the argument about marriage being for the raising of children is irrelevant at best.
No. I don't understand the role of a father figure. Why don't you explain it to me in concrete terms and explain why it is needed? Those children who supposedly suffered because of not having a father figure probably suffered because of societal expectation. They are not proud of their "fathers" because of the negative attitudes they get from bigoted heterosexuals. If the children were taught about how much the "fathers" loved and cared for them, their pride in their fathers would likely change. If they were adopted, it could be explained that they were really wanted and not born by accident (which is so often the case with heterosexual relationships).
They are "supposed to" have father figures according to society. As I said before, if the parents think that the child needs a father figure, there are ways to expose the child to father figures. Do you claim that heterosexual couples should remain married "for the sake of the children" no matter what the physical and emotional condition of the marriage? Should violent and dysfunctional couples stay together. I have seen traumatized children from such marriages. I have even heard a despicable father say that it doesn't matter how harsh and demanding he is with his family. His wife is to obey him and stay with him because God and the Bible say so. The children see this attitude.
Anyway, the bottom line is that if treated will, children from homosexual couples can grow to be healthy and happy adults contributing to society.
mattskramer
Senior Member
khafley, Look at me. I can "copy and paste" too.
"Marriage Amendment: Oppose Writing Intolerance into the Constitution.
Spurred by the recent Massachusetts State Supreme Court decision against discrimination, some members of the radical religious right are aggressively campaigning to amend the U.S. Constitution to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples in committed relationships. The proposed amendment (H.J. Res 56/S.J. Res 26) would also invalidate all state and local domestic partnership laws and nullify civil rights protections based on marital status.
Today we look back, almost disbelieving, on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants and between people of different races. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny a basic right to marry to two adults simply because they are gay or lesbian. Now, some want to write that discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.
Gay Americans serve in the military, keep our communities safe as firefighters and police officers, staff our hospitals, build our cities, and pay taxes. Denying gay couples the right to marry takes away legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations and inheritance that other committed couples enjoy.
Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment!
Amending the Constitution is an extreme act.
The proposed amendment would deny the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples and in doing so obliterate the family rights that many same-sex couples -- and unmarried heterosexual couples -- and their families now have. Revising the Constitution to ensure discrimination against anyone in America is wrong and should be rejected.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is unnecessary.
Even though the country has periodically struggled with the question of marriage -- the last law prohibiting people of different races from marrying was overturned only 35 years ago -- we have never taken the step of amending the Constitution to define marriage. Now is not the time to begin to use the Constitution as a tool for discrimination.
The Federal Marriage Amendment rejects American traditions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It would reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms. None of our constitutional amendments restrict individual freedoms. In fact, the amendments to the Constitution have been the source of most of the Constitution's protections for individual liberty rights. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of people in committed long-term relationships."
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=9977&c=100
"Marriage Amendment: Oppose Writing Intolerance into the Constitution.
Spurred by the recent Massachusetts State Supreme Court decision against discrimination, some members of the radical religious right are aggressively campaigning to amend the U.S. Constitution to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples in committed relationships. The proposed amendment (H.J. Res 56/S.J. Res 26) would also invalidate all state and local domestic partnership laws and nullify civil rights protections based on marital status.
Today we look back, almost disbelieving, on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants and between people of different races. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny a basic right to marry to two adults simply because they are gay or lesbian. Now, some want to write that discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.
Gay Americans serve in the military, keep our communities safe as firefighters and police officers, staff our hospitals, build our cities, and pay taxes. Denying gay couples the right to marry takes away legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations and inheritance that other committed couples enjoy.
Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment!
Amending the Constitution is an extreme act.
The proposed amendment would deny the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples and in doing so obliterate the family rights that many same-sex couples -- and unmarried heterosexual couples -- and their families now have. Revising the Constitution to ensure discrimination against anyone in America is wrong and should be rejected.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is unnecessary.
Even though the country has periodically struggled with the question of marriage -- the last law prohibiting people of different races from marrying was overturned only 35 years ago -- we have never taken the step of amending the Constitution to define marriage. Now is not the time to begin to use the Constitution as a tool for discrimination.
The Federal Marriage Amendment rejects American traditions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It would reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms. None of our constitutional amendments restrict individual freedoms. In fact, the amendments to the Constitution have been the source of most of the Constitution's protections for individual liberty rights. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of people in committed long-term relationships."
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=9977&c=100
khafley:
Great link! I don't remember ever reading a more lucid, matter-of-fact appraisal of the homosexual agenda. Once "tolerance" is achieved, the next logical step is, "Who are you, then, to say that your way is any better than mine?" Having first tolerated, then codified (through coercion, such as the threat of being called - horror of horrors - intolerant) one perverse lifestyle, where - and how - does society draw the line?
And, to the sentence, "...nearly every dollar spent by our government on social welfare is in reaction to a marriage breaking down or failing to form.", I can only add a hearty "Amen!"
On a slightly unrelated topic, however, I must take exception with Jesse Jackson's comments on the three-fifths rule of the Constitution. Like so many self-appointed "black leaders", he has either failed to understand the rule, or - more likely - understands it perfectly, but deliberately misrepresents it in order to nurture the racial discontent which is so vital to his hold on power.
Great link! I don't remember ever reading a more lucid, matter-of-fact appraisal of the homosexual agenda. Once "tolerance" is achieved, the next logical step is, "Who are you, then, to say that your way is any better than mine?" Having first tolerated, then codified (through coercion, such as the threat of being called - horror of horrors - intolerant) one perverse lifestyle, where - and how - does society draw the line?
And, to the sentence, "...nearly every dollar spent by our government on social welfare is in reaction to a marriage breaking down or failing to form.", I can only add a hearty "Amen!"
On a slightly unrelated topic, however, I must take exception with Jesse Jackson's comments on the three-fifths rule of the Constitution. Like so many self-appointed "black leaders", he has either failed to understand the rule, or - more likely - understands it perfectly, but deliberately misrepresents it in order to nurture the racial discontent which is so vital to his hold on power.
OCA
VIP Member
Khafley you cannot argue logically and sanely with Matts, take it from me I know. He will compare homosexuality to things likec ice cream and pushups LMFAO! He's a moral relativist, in other words a fence sitter. Oh he'll tell you that he does take a stand but his reasons behind his stand are all FENCE SITTING.
Oh nice paste from the ACLU Matts, don't they hate christianity?
Oh nice paste from the ACLU Matts, don't they hate christianity?
mattskramer
Senior Member
Originally posted by OCA
Khafley you cannot argue logically and sanely with Matts, take it from me I know. He will compare homosexuality to things likec ice cream and pushups LMFAO! He's a moral relativist, in other words a fence sitter. Oh he'll tell you that he does take a stand but his reasons behind his stand are all FENCE SITTING.
Oh nice paste from the ACLU Matts, don't they hate christianity?
We have all ready gone over this. I rely on sound logic and reason. I am no more a fence sitter than are you. No, to my knowledge the ACLU, as an organization, does not hate Christianity.
nycflasher
Active Member
Originally posted by OCA
Khafley you cannot argue logically and sanely with Matts, take it from me I know. He will compare homosexuality to things likec ice cream and pushups LMFAO! He's a moral relativist, in other words a fence sitter.
And OCA hates homosexuals, so there is not much point in trying to talk with him about the issue!
OCA
VIP Member
Originally posted by nycflasher
And OCA hates homosexuals, so there is not much point in trying to talk with him about the issue!
Fuck an a right! I hate their political and social "special rights" agenda with a passion. If they want to lick feces and spooge off their significant others knob or eat their butches trim in the privacy of their own closet then fine, NO MARRIAGE OR SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR BAD LIFESTYLE CHOICES!
OCA
VIP Member
Anybody see the results of this poll? I'd say its probably pretty represenative of America as a whole, better than two to one. Anybody now see why homos go through courts rather than through a ballot measure? 
nycflasher
Active Member
Originally posted by OCA
Fuck an a right! I hate their political and social "special rights" agenda with a passion. If they want to lick feces and spooge off their significant others knob or eat their butches trim in the privacy of their own closet then fine, NO MARRIAGE OR SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR BAD LIFESTYLE CHOICES!
Hey, is that the voice of reason I hear?
: Nothing is special about marriage except the commitment of two people to love and cherish eachother until death does them part.
I forget if you're married (hard to imagine you are) but certainly you are no more special than a "feces licker."
nycflasher
Active Member
Originally posted by OCA
Anybody see the results of this poll? I'd say its probably pretty represenative of America as a whole, better than two to one. Anybody now see why homos go through courts rather than through a ballot measure?
I'd say it's more representative of a consrvative chat forum.
OCA
VIP Member
Originally posted by nycflasher
Hey, is that the voice of reason I hear?
Nothing is special about marriage except the commitment of two people to love and cherish eachother until death does them part.
I forget if you're married (hard to imagine you are) but certainly you are no more special than a "feces licker."
If you are heterosexual you are more "mentally" special.
OCA
VIP Member
Originally posted by nycflasher
I'd say it's more representative of a consrvative chat forum.
Well lets say you and your queer friends put the issue to a state by state vote. They got the balls to do that? We'll find out just how right I am.
nycflasher
Active Member
Originally posted by OCA
Well lets say you and your queer friends put the issue to a state by state vote. They got the balls to do that? We'll find out just how right I am.
Well, you're the one that likes talking about balls and feces so much...but it's not even about that. It's about personal freedom.
Several states HAVE already taken action:
Mass. and Oregon(they are accepting licenses anyways) recognize gay marriage.
Vermont has civil unions.
California, New Jersey and Hawaii have domestic-partnership laws that provide certain legal rights to gay relationships.
Bush Speaks Out Against Gay Marriage
2 hours, 20 minutes ago Add Politics to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Saturday that allowing gay marriage would undermine families, as he played to his conservative base by pushing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.
Bush made the highly charged issue of gay marriage the focus of his weekly radio address the day after the U.S. Senate opened debate on the proposed gay-marriage ban, which seemed certain to fail.
"A great deal is at stake in this matter," Bush said. "For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. ... And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure."
It was the second time this week the Republican president raised the subject of gay marriage as his campaign tried to focus on social issues, including the abortion debate.
Although Bush announced his support in February for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, he has rarely mentioned it until the last few days.
Bush's presumptive Democratic rival, John Kerry (news - web sites), opposes a constitutional ban, saying the issue of whether to allow gay marriage should be left up to the states.
The constitutional amendment would need approval by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives and then would have to be ratified by 38 states. Even supporters admit they do not have the support of half of the 100 senators.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040710/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc
2 hours, 20 minutes ago Add Politics to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Saturday that allowing gay marriage would undermine families, as he played to his conservative base by pushing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.
Bush made the highly charged issue of gay marriage the focus of his weekly radio address the day after the U.S. Senate opened debate on the proposed gay-marriage ban, which seemed certain to fail.
"A great deal is at stake in this matter," Bush said. "For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. ... And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure."
It was the second time this week the Republican president raised the subject of gay marriage as his campaign tried to focus on social issues, including the abortion debate.
Although Bush announced his support in February for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, he has rarely mentioned it until the last few days.
Bush's presumptive Democratic rival, John Kerry (news - web sites), opposes a constitutional ban, saying the issue of whether to allow gay marriage should be left up to the states.
The constitutional amendment would need approval by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives and then would have to be ratified by 38 states. Even supporters admit they do not have the support of half of the 100 senators.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040710/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc
OCA
VIP Member
Originally posted by nycflasher
Well, you're the one that likes talking about balls and feces so much...but it's not even about that. It's about personal freedom.
Several states HAVE already taken action:
Mass. and Oregon(they are accepting licenses anyways) recognize gay marriage.
Vermont has civil unions.
California, New Jersey and Hawaii have domestic-partnership laws that provide certain legal rights to gay relationships.
You see where the secretary of health and human services in California 86'd all the marriage certificates because they were altered? No queers that were married in SF are legally married. Oregon, well Oregon is a fascist liberal state so you'd expect them to anything they can to undermine normalcy, still the marriages are not legal in the eyes of the law, just some fruitcake marriage license person thinking they are "progressive" when in reality they are "destructive". Heck the IRS is not recognizing any joint marriage forms from gay couples since it is a violation of the defense of marriage act. When will queers realize they are wrong?
Than god Bush is pushing this amendment! People don't believe the media, this thing has a great chance of passing.
Originally posted by nycflasher
Well, you're the one that likes talking about balls and feces so much...but it's not even about that. It's about personal freedom.
No it's not. It's about a mental illness that entails a perverted sexual preference. Nothing more.
Fags and their filthy perverted attack on a Holy Union of MAN and WOMAN is nothing more than directed by the devil himself.
nycflasher
Active Member
Originally posted by Pale Rider
No it's not. It's about a mental illness that entails a perverted sexual preference. Nothing more.
Fags and their filthy perverted attack on a Holy Union of MAN and WOMAN is nothing more than directed by the devil himself.
Blah blah blah...
good luck on getting that 'ban' ammendment...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 282
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 77
- Views
- 760
- Replies
- 50
- Views
- 633
- Replies
- 167
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 843
- Views
- 8K
- Replies
- 100
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-