Gay marriage

[Bullypulpit]

Dubbyuh spoke on the non-issue of gay marriage in his radio address today. Since his standing as a "war president" has crumbled under his feet, he has to find something to polarize the electorate. What better way than to whip up the fears of the religious right-wingnuts that they're going to wake up gay in the morning.

Dubbyuh is such an effing little creep.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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.

Sorry....Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a mental illness over thirty years ago.

Forty years ago, this:

"Fags and their filthy perverted attack on a Holy Union of MAN and WOMAN is nothing more than directed by the devil himself. "

Would have read as this:

"Negroes and their filthy perverted attack on a Holy Union of a WHITE MAN and a WHITE WOMAN is nothing more than directed by the devil himself."

The arguments against same gender marriages are no different, and possessed of no more merit, than the arguments of supporters of the long since overturned anti-misegenation laws that were left over from the Jim Crow era.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Sorry....Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a mental illness over thirty years ago.

Well... sorry.... but it's a commonly known fact that the psychiatric community "CAVED" in the face of insurmountable and relentless preasure from the fag community to get them to say that. So, at this point, it doesn't matter what "they" say. It has lost it's clout. Fact is, fagness IS a MENTAL DISORDER.

 

[007]

Bush Speaks Out Against Gay Marriage

Sat Jul 10, 2:34 PM ET 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&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040710/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc

 

[007]

Thank God for President Bush.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

The Constitution is meant to provide rights not deny them. Plus it should usually involve issues relating to government and not random social issues. Fifty years from now we will look back on the ban on gay marriage and realize how ridiculous it actually was. The insitution of marriage has been "jeopordized" enough by we straight people through adultery and divorce. Let any two people who love each other be recognized by the government. I'm fine with leaving the term marriage in the religious arena used only between a man and a woman but it is insane to deny a loving person from such things as viewing their "spouse" in a hospital because s/he is gay. Last I checked we were a freedom loving society. Come on Bush/conservatives/others, we have dramatically more important things to worry about.

 

[Trinity]

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!

 

[Trinity]

Same-sex families always deny children either their mother or father.


Same-sex family is a vast, untested social experiment with children.


Where does it stop? How do we say "no" to group marriage?


Schools will be forced to teach that the homosexual family is normal. Churches will be legally forced to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Lessons From the World's Most Famous Lesbian Mom...

Rosie O’Donnell shared this story in an ABC Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer:

Six-year-old Parker asks his mother, Rosie: “Mommy, why can’t I have a daddy?” Rosie answers: “Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.”3



Two most dangerous words for a parent to utter together: “I” and “want.”


Parker has never asked, “Momma, why can’t we have all the rights and protections of marriage?” You see, such things only matter to adults. But he has said, “Momma, why can’t I have a daddy?”


What matters for children in marriage is whether their mothers are married to their fathers.

 

[Trinity]

If this were just about your family, there would be no real danger. But same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for you alone, but rather demanding me -- and all of us -- to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage.


Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.


And I will never allow my (grand) children to be taught that their gender doesn’t matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone’s in this world.



My civil rights to object to homosexuality as an idea will be gone.


Same-sex relationships and homes are tolerated in society today. Our nation has no existing problem where same-sex couples are evicted from their neighborhoods because of how they live. Americans tolerate such relationships.


But this is not about mere tolerance. Instead it is about forcing everyone to fully accept these unnatural families.


Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here.


Every public school in the nation would be forced to teach that same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are perfectly normal –- Heather has Two Mommies in K-12. Pictures in text books will be changed to show same-sex couples as normal.


Your church will be legally pressured to perform same-sex weddings. When courts -- as happened in Massachusetts -- find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will successfully argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage.


Gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships. They don’t have a right to redefine marriage for all of us.

 

[Trinity]

When posed with the question “Why draw the line at two people?,” same-sex marriage advocate Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign said, ”Because I don't approve of that.”7

…well, that brings an important question to mind:


How come your “because I don’t approve of that” objection to polygamy is more reasonable than my “I don’t approve of that” objection to same-sex “marriage”?

 

[Trinity]

Sexual preference is nothing like skin color. Homosexuality is not a civil right.

 

[krisy]

Originally posted by khafley
When posed with the question “Why draw the line at two people?,” same-sex marriage advocate Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign said, ”Because I don't approve of that.”7

…well, that brings an important question to mind:


How come your “because I don’t approve of that” objection to polygamy is more reasonable than my “I don’t approve of that” objection to same-sex “marriage”?

good point,khafley!

 

[007]

Originally posted by MJDuncan1982
The Constitution is meant to provide rights not deny them. Plus it should usually involve issues relating to government and not random social issues. Fifty years from now we will look back on the ban on gay marriage and realize how ridiculous it actually was. The insitution of marriage has been "jeopordized" enough by we straight people through adultery and divorce. Let any two people who love each other be recognized by the government. I'm fine with leaving the term marriage in the religious arena used only between a man and a woman but it is insane to deny a loving person from such things as viewing their "spouse" in a hospital because s/he is gay. Last I checked we were a freedom loving society. Come on Bush/conservatives/others, we have dramatically more important things to worry about.

The conservatives wanting a constitutional amendment banning queer weddings isn't as bad as the libs wanting to ban gun ownership which is an original constitutional right.

And I don't know what you're talking about. I sure the hell aren't going to "look back in fifty years, and think how silly it was to want to ban queer marriage". Hopefully I'll look back and be thankful that we had an insightful President that had the sense to ban it.

And if thinking about this issue is overwhelming you to the point that you can't think about anything else, then maybe you shouldn't say anything about.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I agree that same-sex families always deny children either a mom or a dad but traditional families don't always provide them either. Plus, this is not just about children - there are more people involved. We don't run our country based on what is good for children alone. And to answer where does it stop I say perhaps with two people - the smallest number of humans necessary for a relationship. Not concrete but a suggestion. Also the idea that homosexuality is not normal is wrong. The Greeks didn't even have a word for it.

It is not a logical necessity that optional equates with meaningless either. Even getting married is an option but that doesn't make spouses as a whole meaningless.

You claim your civil rights to object will be gone but that is not true. It is not illegal for people of different races to marry but you can still personally object to the idea.

You also claim that this is about forcing everyone to accept something that is unnatural. Homosexuality is not unnatural at all - many animal species pair up same sex as well. What definition of unnatural are you using?

And finally I myself am not opposed to keeping the term marriage between a man and a woman. The government just to simply recognize the relationship between two consenting adult citizens.

I have never understood why people feel threatened by the thought of two people in love legitimizing that love.

 

[Trinity]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
The conservatives wanting a constitutional amendment banning queer weddings isn't as bad as the libs wanting to ban gun ownership which is an original constitutional right.

And I don't know you're talking about. I sure the hell aren't going to "look back in fifty years, and think how silly it was to want to ban queers marriage". Hopefully I'll look back and be thankful that we had an insightful President that had the sense to ban it.

And if thinking about this issue is overwhelming you to the point that you can't think about anything else, then maybe you shouldn't say anything about.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Pale Rider, I never said was overly stressed about this issue. I am calmly trying to debate it. It seems to me President Bush is overly stressed by the idea.

 

[Trinity]

[

Originally posted by MJDuncan1982
I agree that same-sex families always deny children either a mom or a dad but traditional families don't always provide them either. Plus, this is not just about children - there are more people involved. We don't run our country based on what is good for children alone. And to answer where does it stop I say perhaps with two people - the smallest number of humans necessary for a relationship. Not concrete but a suggestion. Also the idea that homosexuality is not normal is wrong. The Greeks didn't even have a word for it.


No but these children will be running the country one day now won't they?

You also claim that this is about forcing everyone to accept something that is unnatural. Homosexuality is not unnatural at all - many animal species pair up same sex as well. What definition of unnatural are you using?[/QUOTE


Please show me I was unaware of any other species besides the human race that engages in sex with the same sex!Except maybe a paticular species of frog, but even they can change their sexual organs to accomodate the situation.


I have never understood why people feel threatened by the thought of two people in love legitimizing that love. [/B][/QUOTE


It's not that I feel threatened, it's I have 2 young boys who My husband and I are trying to raise to be good, decent, law-abiding, contributing, heterosexual christians.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I believe you can raise your kids even if it is legalized. My parents would prefer for me to marry a white woman (I am white) but don't need to ban interracial marriage in order to do that.

 

[Trinity]

Originally posted by MJDuncan1982
I believe you can raise your kids even if it is legalized. My parents would prefer for me to marry a white woman (I am white) but don't need to ban interracial marriage in order to do that.

Well if your male at least your marrying a women.

 

[007]

Originally posted by MJDuncan1982
Pale Rider, I never said was overly stressed about this issue. I am calmly trying to debate it. It seems to me President Bush is overly stressed by the idea.

Well duncan, your sentence structure is so fucked up, I can hardly make sense of anything you write. Therefore, I'm not assigning much importance to it, and I'm certainly not inclined to debate you. Hell, I don't even understand you.

I don't know who's been filling your head with that mush your trying to push off here, but YOU are the one that's WRONG.

I'll make one "short" attempt at explaining why to you, because I think you're either super young, like 8 or 9, or an idiot.

Now follow me here.... "MEN HAVE A PENIS, WOMEN HAVE A VAGINA, THE PENIS IS TO BE INSERTED INTO THE WOMAN'S VAGINA FOR THE >NATURAL< PURPOSE OF PROCREATION". "IT ALSO HAPPENS TO FEEL VERY GOOD". "THEY WERE CREATED TO WORK IN CONJUCTION". "MEN, STICKING THEIR PENIS UP ANOTHER MAN'S ANUS, IS ABOUT THE MOST UNNATURAL AND PERVERTED ACT ONE HUMAN BEING CAN DO TO ANOTHER". "THERE'S NOTHING LOVING, OR NATURAL ABOUT IT".

I hope you were able to follow that.