Senate panel backs gay marriage ban

[ScreamingEagle]

Ahhh...You've drunk too deeply of the kool-aid. Since same-gender couples were allowed to marry in Massachussetts, no straight person woke up gay after the first same-gender couple married...the world did not come to an end, and life went on as usual.

There has been no demonstrable harm caused, either to those same-gender couples who have married nor to society at large. There has been no demonstrable harm to the children of these families. Get over it...Your feeble arguments are baseless and rooted in your own fears and doubts about your own sexuality.

Come to think of it though, if some of these morons woke up gay, it would effectively keep them from polluting the rest of the gene pool.

I don't think you even recognize kool-aid when you drink it....which you obviously do quite often. As far as demonstrable harm is concerned, just take a look at what is happening in the few short years of gay marriage in the Netherlands.

Actually our world-- as we know it-- will be coming to an end if this insanity continues. Things will not happen overnight, but things will change for the worse as our culture unravels. Marriage and religion will be diminished. Children will suffer. Morality will become more relative. The State will gain more power over family unit and people in general. America the great will not be as great.

 

[KarlMarx]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A Senate panel approved a controversial proposal to write a gay marriage ban into the US Constitution.

The proposed amendment will go to the full Senate on June 5 for what is expected to be a heated debate on a ban backed by President George W. Bush.

The American people support protecting traditional marriage, and we should give this amendment due consideration through the full legislative process," Republican Senator Sam Brownback said.

"We must continue to fight for the protection of traditional marriage."

The proposed constitutional amendment faces an uphill battle as it must be passed by two-thirds of senators, two-thirds of representatives in the House and then approved by two-thirds of the 50 US states.

However, the numbers of legislators, both for and against gay marriage, who say the matter is better left to the individual states, are too many to allow passage.

A previous attempt failed in Congress in 2004.

The measure was approved Thursday by all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy called the the proposal right-wing demagoguery. His colleague Russ Feingold called it a maneuver by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to mobilize the religious right prior to November legislative elections, which look increasingly difficult for Republicans, now that Bush's approval rating has withered.

A poll released in March showed 51 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage, down from a high of 63 percent in 2004.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, a group defending gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals, 18 states have adopted amendments to their own constitutions specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman and 27 others have laws to that effect.

Gays say that without marriage they lose important rights such as inheritance of property, immigration, adoption or making medical decisions for an ill or disabled partner.

Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex couples to join in civil unions, which grant many of the rights of marriage.

Only one state, Massachusetts, now allows same-sex marriages, based on a decision handed down by its supreme court.

"I'm not prepared to surrender to the courts," said Republican Senator Wayne Allard, backer of the constitutional amendment. He said that a Senate debate was necessary to advance the cause of stopping gay marriage.

"It's important to move the issue forward," he said.

In Maryland, which borders Washington, a judge found in January that local law prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional.

The legality of same-sex marriage is also before courts in the states of Nebraska, California, New Jersey, New York and Washington.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060518/pl_afp/uspoliticsgays_060518225553

This is called "ratifying the Constitution". It isn't an attempt by the GOP to round up gays into concentration camps. The way it works is, once an amendment for ratification passes both(?) houses of Congress, each state must vote on whether to ratify it. If two thirds of the states agree with the amendment, it is written into the Constitution.

This is called "popular mandate", anathema to those on the Left. But it sure beats the living hell out of having the judiciary dictate to the Legislative branch (as happened in Massachusetts) or just having the judiciary dictate from the bench.

This isn't the Lunatic Fringe taking over the country or the GOP conspiring to round up all the gays into psycho wards and giving them "straight" pills. This is Democracy in action. If most of the voters in two thirds of the states believe there should be a ban on gay marriage, then tough luck for gay people, if voters of 1/3 or more of the states vote to defeat the amendment, then there's hope for gay marriage. That's the way it works in a democracy, you're free to make your voice heard, but you don't always get your way.

 

[Bullypulpit]

For the same reason we don't allow Bubba to marry his sheep. It isn't normal behavior. Talk about thickheads. What part of that don't you whiney-ass libs get?

Your analogy is as meaningless as the rest of your "argument". "Just because..." does not constitute an argument. When you can offer objective, independently verifiable proof that permitting loving, committed same-gender couples to enjoy the same benefits and priviledges as traditional couples causes harm to the individuals in the relationship or society at large, I will give your arguments a fair hearing. But I'm not holding my breath on that count.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I don't think you even recognize kool-aid when you drink it....which you obviously do quite often. As far as demonstrable harm is concerned, just take a look at what is happening in the few short years of gay marriage in the Netherlands.

Actually our world-- as we know it-- will be coming to an end if this insanity continues. Things will not happen overnight, but things will change for the worse as our culture unravels. Marriage and religion will be diminished. Children will suffer. Morality will become more relative. The State will gain more power over family unit and people in general. America the great will not be as great.

Between 2001, when the Dutch law permitting same-gender marriages went into effect, and the end of 2005, <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands>some 6600 same-gender couples</a> were married. Hardly a flood of marriages, and the divorce rates are about the same as for the straight population.

As for your assertion that same-gender marriages have somehow undermined the institution of heterosexual marriage, you are just so WRONG. In many of the 9 European countries that permit the marriage or domestic partnerships of same-gender couples the rates of marriage for heterosexual couples are actually <a href=http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/>higher than they were</a> before same-gender marriages were permitted.

The worries expressed by you, and other right-wing ideologues, is no more than the anxious hand wringing of a bunch of "Chicken Littles" worried that the sky is falling.

So stop worrying that you're going to wake up queer because your neighbors are gay...It's not going to happen.

 

[Kagom]

Well some, (not all), are trying their hardest to with school child recruitment etc.

I cringe when I see people assume we're trying to recruit. You can't. It's not possible. You can't force people to change their sexual orientation. I wouldn't try not only because it's not right but because it isn't possible. If given the choice to change someone's sexuality, would I? No.

 

[Kagom]

The divorce rate would skyrocket. Then of course the anti marriage people would be given better statistics for them to attack the insitution of marriage with. Thats part of the plan.

Divorce wouldn't skyrocket. It's absurd to make such an assumption without a factual base framestructure to work on.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well some, (not all), are trying their hardest to with school child recruitment etc.

Do you have <b><i>ANY</i></b> evidence at all to support that ridiculous assertion..? Let alone evidence that can be independently verified...? I didn't think so.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Some people think its alright to murder others. Some people think its alright to beat others because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Some people think its alright to cheat and steal from people.

Simply because some people think its alright doesnt mean it should be legal.

Of course the dirty little secret is that the government isnt really denying gay partners any of the benefits married couples have that arent inherent in the fact that they cant reproduce. There is no reason for the government to legitimize destructive relationships. You guys know this. Which is why you wont use the Democratic process to pursue your agenda. This is why you have to force it on the American people.

So, Brown v. Board of Education was wrong? And the government legitimizes destructive relation ships all the time. Every time a child is given back into the hands of a junky mother by children's services, a destructive relationship is legitimized. Every time APS fails to investigate a claim of elder abuse, the governemnt legitimizes a destructive relationship. Your assertion that all same-gender relationships are destructive is misguided at best...Utterly fallacious at worst.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Because they arent traditional couples. They dont provide the same benefits traditional couples do. And because they are trying to force it on the people against their will. Thats called Tyranny. Although its not surprising that you support it.

Besides, even if the government granted same gender couples the ability to marry, they would not receieve the same privileges, rights, or responsibilities because the government cant give them the ability to create life together. You can only create life with a man and a woman.

So, the only purpose of marriage is procreation? Since my wife and I decided not to have children, does this invalidate our marriage? That is the logical extension of your assertion, after all.

 

[Avatar4321]

Divorce wouldn't skyrocket. It's absurd to make such an assumption without a factual base framestructure to work on.

Of course it would. Homosexual relationships are not stable relationships. Allowing them to marry wont change that.

 

[Avatar4321]

So, Brown v. Board of Education was wrong? And the government legitimizes destructive relation ships all the time. Every time a child is given back into the hands of a junky mother by children's services, a destructive relationship is legitimized. Every time APS fails to investigate a claim of elder abuse, the governemnt legitimizes a destructive relationship. Your assertion that all same-gender relationships are destructive is misguided at best...Utterly fallacious at worst.

The fact that you people keep trying to compare racial discrimination with homosexual attempts at oppression is sickening. Is it really that difficult to see the difference between a physical characteristic trait that everyone knows and which you cant change and a behavior that no one knows unless you announce it and which can be changed?

Facts are fact, but then you have yet to deal with any of them despite having them cited to you dozens of times. So why would you change now? The fact is you are a short sighted self righteous bigot. As much as Id love to see that change I doubt its going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Dr Grump]

The fact that you people keep trying to compare racial discrimination with homosexual attempts at oppression is sickening. Is it really that difficult to see the difference between a physical characteristic trait that everyone knows and which you cant change and a behavior that no one knows unless you announce it and which can be changed?

Facts are fact, but then you have yet to deal with any of them despite having them cited to you dozens of times. So why would you change now? The fact is you are a short sighted self righteous bigot. As much as Id love to see that change I doubt its going to happen anytime soon.

Can you start backing up some of your assertions please? Like homosexual relationships are inherently unstable? Huge numbers of hetrosexual people get divorced every year.

And how do you know homosexual "behaviour" can be changed? Are you a behavioural psychologist? You said facts are facts. Time to start backing them up, no?

 

[Avatar4321]

So, the only purpose of marriage is procreation? Since my wife and I decided not to have children, does this invalidate our marriage? That is the logical extension of your assertion, after all.

If it was what I said maybe. But I am not playing with your straw man.

The only reason government recognizes marriage is because of procreation. Because it creates a benefit for society - The most stable environment to perpetuate the species.

None of the other purposes for marriage, IE Intimacy, pleasure, or security, give government a purpose to recognize marriage.

Homosexual couples cannot create a stable and healthy environment to perpetuate the species. In fact, they cant perpetuate themselves. They are preventing their increase. In essence damning any chance to recieve full happiness.

But regardless of the self destructiveness of such relationships. they provide the government with no reason to recognize them. Until they do, there is no reason they should be recognized. If you disagree, then try to argue your cause before the people. Use the Democratic process. Stop trying to subvert it.

As for your own marriage. Its fairly sad that you misunderstand the greatest blessing of marriage. However, its your choice. And you know it might be better that the future generation is not subjected to your points of view.

 

[Avatar4321]

Can you start backing up some of your assertions please? Like homosexual relationships are inherently unstable? Huge numbers of hetrosexual people get divorced every year.

And how do you know homosexual "behaviour" can be changed? Are you a behavioural psychologist? You said facts are facts. Time to start backing them up, no?

You want me to back up at 5am in the morning what has been repeated over and over in thousands of threads on this board? if you want the info look it up. its there.

 

[Dr Grump]

You want me to back up at 5am in the morning what has been repeated over and over in thousands of threads on this board? if you want the info look it up. its there.

So you can't back it up? Ok....(BTW, tonnes of these threads are repeats...if we all had that attitude, there would be little point in posting)

 

[Bullypulpit]

If it was what I said maybe. But I am not playing with your straw man.

The only reason government recognizes marriage is because of procreation. Because it creates a benefit for society - The most stable environment to perpetuate the species.

None of the other purposes for marriage, IE Intimacy, pleasure, or security, give government a purpose to recognize marriage.

Homosexual couples cannot create a stable and healthy environment to perpetuate the species. In fact, they cant perpetuate themselves. They are preventing their increase. In essence damning any chance to recieve full happiness.

But regardless of the self destructiveness of such relationships. they provide the government with no reason to recognize them. Until they do, there is no reason they should be recognized. If you disagree, then try to argue your cause before the people. Use the Democratic process. Stop trying to subvert it.

As for your own marriage. Its fairly sad that you misunderstand the greatest blessing of marriage. However, its your choice. And you know it might be better that the future generation is not subjected to your points of view.

The government recognizes marriages because they involve what is, in essence, a contractual arrangement regarding property and personal relationships. Religion endorses marriage and, for that matter, sexual congress solely for the purpose of procreation.

Now, you keep mentioning how self destructive same-gender relationships are...Just what evidence do have to support that assertion? Gay or straight, the relationship between a couple is only as good as the people involved.

As for my wife and I, we understand what we missed, but having married in our fourties, we didn't want to be going into diapers before our children got out of theirs.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The fact that you people keep trying to compare racial discrimination with homosexual attempts at oppression is sickening. Is it really that difficult to see the difference between a physical characteristic trait that everyone knows and which you cant change and a behavior that no one knows unless you announce it and which can be changed?

Facts are fact, but then you have yet to deal with any of them despite having them cited to you dozens of times. So why would you change now? The fact is you are a short sighted self righteous bigot. As much as Id love to see that change I doubt its going to happen anytime soon.

Discrimination is dsicrimination whether it is based upon the color of one's skin or one's sexuality.

 

[Gunny]

Your analogy is as meaningless as the rest of your "argument". "Just because..." does not constitute an argument. When you can offer objective, independently verifiable proof that permitting loving, committed same-gender couples to enjoy the same benefits and priviledges as traditional couples causes harm to the individuals in the relationship or society at large, I will give your arguments a fair hearing. But I'm not holding my breath on that count.

Nah ... it's a perfect analogy. In both cases, it's a person screwing the wrong thing.

What does not constitute an argument is ANYTHING that attempts to legtimize homosexuality as normal behavior. Such as your bullshit posted above.

It is not normal behavior; therefore, should not be recognized as such. Pretty simple math.

 

[Gunny]

So you can't back it up? Ok....(BTW, tonnes of these threads are repeats...if we all had that attitude, there would be little point in posting)

Bullshit. What's the point to playing cut and paste with unverified statistics? What does that prove? That you can type a word into a search engine?

You're just one of those typical libs that wants to smother the simple truth with a bunch of twisted, out of context BS.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Nah ... it's a perfect analogy. In both cases, it's a person screwing the wrong thing.

What does not constitute an argument is ANYTHING that attempts to legtimize homosexuality as normal behavior. Such as your bullshit posted above.

It is not normal behavior; therefore, should not be recognized as such. Pretty simple math.

Sex with an animal and sex between two consenting adults regardless of gender are not, despite your puerile attempts to state otherwise, equivalent.

That homosexuality is not "normal" is nothing more than an opinion, and unless you have facts to support it, the argument does not stand.