Senate panel backs gay marriage ban

[Gunny]

SO why not let same-gender couples form families which enjoy the same priviledges, righs and responsibilities that traditional couples do?

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?

 

[Gunny]

Same-gender couples and the families they form have been a part of American society for generations. There has been no demonstrable harm to these couples or the children they have cared for, nor to society at large. The problem is, you're blind.

It would be YOU who is blind. Gay families raise children that believe homosexuality is normal behavior. That alone is reason enough.

 

[mattskramer]

And you've been shot down more times than Daffy Duck.

Prove it. When and where was I shot down? I don't recall ever being shot down. Now. Instead of attacking the messenger, how about giving an intelligent reply to the message?

 

[Avatar4321]

SO why not let same-gender couples form families which enjoy the same priviledges, righs and responsibilities that traditional couples do?

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

Same-gender couples and the families they form have been a part of American society for generations. There has been no demonstrable harm to these couples or the children they have cared for, nor to society at large. The problem is, you're blind.

Bullcrap. Provide evidence.

 

[Gunny]

Prove it. When and where was I shot down? I don't recall ever being shot down. Now. Instead of attacking the messenger, how about giving an intelligent reply to the message?

What message? The same twisted logic you use in EVERY debate? I choose not to play with you, Matt simply because you are just play that backwards-assed word-twisting game that leads to pages and pages of you saying nothing and ignoring every fact and argument that proves you wrong.

we've had this debate before. You were wrong. After much wasted time, you finally went away. Well, see if you can't find some other sucker that wants to play a game of wordsmithing with you for 4-5 pages this time. I'm not new to the board anymore.

 

[Bonnie]

Because I"m sure gay people are destroying it.

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

 

[mattskramer]

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?

People set limits for various things. Some people think that we should allow adults to smoke though smoking is unhealthy. Some people think that it is okay to take marijuana other people think that it should remain illegal. Some people think that we should allow younger people to drink alcohol. Some people even think that we should return to prohibition. It is all very subjective and not very logical. Okay. I think that gay unions should be recognized as civil unions and should be given the same benefits and responsibilities that are given to married heterosexual couples. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol is risky and dangerous and often unhealthy behavior. Yet, do you think it should continue to be legal activity?

 

[Avatar4321]

I would bet the divorce rate would skyrocket if these childish fools were allowed to pretend they were a legit couple, suddenly that protest glue that held them together would be gone and they would have to actually deal with the fact that they wouldn't be free to go to the bath house and play with the 10 partners the way they are used to. They would realize that they were now just like everyone else that have to live by rules or end up divorced. That is really what is so stupid about the idea, they are so starved to be thought of as normal they don't even know how it will change the freedom they now have to not be normal.

How does the old saying go? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Infamous lefty deflection: Squealing about the "tyranny of the majority" while sneaking in through the back door the "tyranny of the minority."

 

[Gunny]

People set limits for various things. Some people think that we should allow adults to smoke though smoking is unhealthy. Some people think that it is okay to take marijuana other people think that it should remain illegal. Some people think that we should allow younger people to drink alcohol. Some people even think that we should return to prohibition. It is all very subjective and not very logical. Okay. I think that gay unions should be recognized as civil unions and should be given the same benefits and responsibilities that are given to married heterosexual couples. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol is risky and dangerous and often unhealthy behavior. Yet, do you think it should continue to be legal activity?

I see you haven't gotten a new argument. Smking cigarettes and drinking is legal, and accepted as normal behavior by the majority. Bobby pumping Billy in the butt is not.

 

[Avatar4321]

People set limits for various things. Some people think that we should allow adults to smoke though smoking is unhealthy. Some people think that it is okay to take marijuana other people think that it should remain illegal. Some people think that we should allow younger people to drink alcohol. Some people even think that we should return to prohibition. It is all very subjective and not very logical. Okay. I think that gay unions should be recognized as civil unions and should be given the same benefits and responsibilities that are given to married heterosexual couples. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol is risky and dangerous and often unhealthy behavior. Yet, do you think it should continue to be legal activity?

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

Infamous lefty deflection: Squealing about the "tyranny of the majority" while sneaking in through the back door the "tyranny of the minority."

The whole point of having a representative system is that the majority will rule, within certain safeguards of course. If views, laws, or politics are forced on the majority, that is by definition tyranny.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Amen. I'd rep you, but apparently I already recently have.

 

[Gunny]

The whole point of having a representative system is that the majority will rule, within certain safeguards of course. If views, laws, or politics are forced on the majority, that is by definition tyranny.

I think we agree on this. My point was to the hypocrisy of the left. They love to toss that "tyranny of the majority" thing out, while fully supporting the majority suffering the tyranny of the minority.

I don't believe that laws reflecting the viewpoint of the majority necessarily tyrannize the minority. That's just another one of their BS arguments.

 

[Abbey Normal]

The whole point of having a representative system is that the majority will rule, within certain safeguards of course. If views, laws, or politics are forced on the majority, that is by definition tyranny.

Exactly why I think the PC quote from Charlton Heston (2nd in my sig) is so important.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Gee I guess that is true because you say so eh pull-it?

What is really behind this pressing need to get married? I am 52 and never been married. As a male I see no advantage to being married. Could it be that it has nothing to do with homosexuals actually wanting to get married but more to do with the supposed legitimacy it would bring to the lifestyle choice? It will never make a difference with those that see it as wrong, it will always be looked upon as illegitimate wether sanctioned by the governments of the world or not.

It's all a bunch of crap, a lot like the silly lifestyle choice that works well at creating a group of people with some of the highest rates of STDs, suicides, domestic violence, drug abuse and of course the lack of ability for the sphincter muscles to keep the a-hole shut. But then you knew that alreadt didn't you pull-it.

I would bet the divorce rate would skyrocket if these childish fools were allowed to pretend they were a legit couple, suddenly that protest glue that held them together would be gone and they would have to actually deal with the fact that they wouldn't be free to go to the bath house and play with the 10 partners the way they are used to. They would realize that they were now just like everyone else that have to live by rules or end up divorced. That is really what is so stupid about the idea, they are so starved to be thought of as normal they don't even know how it will change the freedom they now have to not be normal.

How does the old saying go? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Given that 50% of straight couples in America wind up in divorce court, your assertion is, shall we say, irrelevant.

Marriage is a choice traditional couples, such as my wife and I, make every day. And like others we also made the choice NOT to have children. Since we did not marry to procreate, is our marriage invalid? Why then should sme-gender couples be denied the opportunity to enjoy the same rights, priviledges and responsibilities enjoyed by me and my wife?

There are, in fact, no valid reasons to deny same-gender couples these same rights under the law.

 

[sitarro]

Given that 50% of straight couples in America wind up in divorce court, your assertion is, shall we say, irrelevant.

Wow, so very original, I would have never predicted such a thoughtful response. Two wrongs make a right , right? I would predict a minimum of 75% divorce rate among homos, I'm sure the lawyers are licking their lips. Why not add to the clogging of the courts with whinny ass homo divorce cases.

Marriage is a choice traditional couples, such as my wife and I, make every day. And like others we also made the choice NOT to have children. Since we did not marry to procreate, is our marriage invalid? Why then should sme-gender couples be denied the opportunity to enjoy the same rights, priviledges and responsibilities enjoyed by me and my wife?

They do enjoy(?) the same rights, they want special rights to marry someone that pisses the same way they do, what next, where do you draw the line or do you. Is it alright to marry a 17 year old, a 15 year old? How about the people that want to marry multiple partners, why not? How about their favorite pet pig, explain to me why you would deny these people their right to marry who or what they want.

There are, in fact, no valid reasons to deny same-gender couples these same rights under the law.

If you say so it must be true. What reasons do you have to deny the polygamist their rights.

 

[sitarro]

Here ya go, these are that I sit up at night worrying about their socalled right to marry. Their whole life revolves around sex, it is who they are, pathetic.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/20/060520202355.b51639uz.html

'Shortbus' sex bonanza a slap to Bush, Cannes director says
May 20 4:24 PM US/Eastern

A US film featuring actors performing real sex is a "call to arms" against President George W. Bush, the director told journalists at the Cannes film festival.

"Shortbus," an explicit, largely improvised arthouse flick that includes a rendition of the American national anthem during a gay sex scene, is a direct provocation, director John Cameron Mitchell admitted.



"It's a little bit of a cri de coeur to us, a little bit of a call to arms" against the prevailing conservatism, he told a media conference, adding that his country was living in "the era of Bush, which is about clamping down, being scared."

The 43-year-old, whose previous work was "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," about a transsexual rock singer, said the film was his own small act of defiance against Bush.

"If you can't do elections you might as well do erections," he said.


Although the first half of the film is filled with sex, including orgies and masturbation, the act itself is not meant to be erotic but rather to challenge the audience and make it confront issues such as loneliness, the illusion of self-sufficiency and other seemingly unrelated problems, Mitchell said.

One scene likely to create controversy in the United States and some other countries shows a gay threesome in which one participant joyfully bellows "The Star Spangled Banner."

The actor with the singing voice, PJ Deboy, said he did the scene to show that he was as American as anyone, despite resistance to gays in parts of the country, including Washington.

"I thought to myself: 'Can I do it...?' And I decided I could, because it is a patriotic act.... There's nothing un-American about gay sex and there's nothing unpatriotic about it," he said.


He also joked that "I am now touring and singing every country's national anthem," and called for volunteers to assist.

Mitchell pointed out that the movie, filmed in New York City, also made pointed references to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Near the end of the movie, the lights flicker out as they did during a blackout that briefly occurred in 2003, provoking fears of a terrorist attack -- and then relief and a sense of togetherness that is likened to an orgasm.

"This film is in the shadow of 9/11, but it shows we're still alive, y'know?" the director said.

"Sex is not that interesting unless it's put into an artistic context, or you're having it yourself," Mitchell said.

"And sometimes not even then," added a cross-dressing actor called Justin Bond who played himself in the movie.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Oh, please. I’ve covered this issue time after time. Some people just refuse to read anything that counters their already made-up opinions. It is like talking to a wall but I have nothing better to do right now so, here I go again.

First of all, let’s define terms. If you think that even to allow civil union status to gay couples is equivalent to giving special rights to gays then the debate stops here. I see it this way:

Heterosexuals, by definition, prefer to have loving and sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex. They are allowed to do so. Also, if they get married, they are allowed to benefits that go with being a married couple.

Homosexuals, by definition, prefer to have loving and sexual relationships with people of the same sex. In some states, they are not allowed to do so. Also, their unions are not generally recognized. Therefore, they are not allowed the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

I think that consenting adult couples should be allowed to engage in whichever intimate relationship (homosexual civil union or heterosexual marriage) they choose and reap the benefits thereof. Therefore, civil unions, in my opinion, constitute an equal right.

Just because many people choose to not engage in legal activities does not mean they we should outlaw the activities. So. These days, fewer people are smoking, but people are allowed to smoke. Let’s restrict smoking. Fewer people are drinking alcohol. Let’s go back to prohibition.

First of all, gays might have rights but they are not equal rights. Why should gay couples be required to “jump through hoops” that non-gay couples are not obligated to jump through to get their “needs” met?

Denying lesbians and gay men the right to marry denies them simple, basic dignity and has serious practical costs as well. Among the practical consequences unique to marriage are the rights to:

· visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital;
· inherit from your partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will;
· obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
· enter joint rental agreements;
· make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;
· take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child;
· choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
· obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
· get an equitable division of property in a divorce;
· have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;
· determine child custody and support in a divorce;
· have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;
· file joint tax returns;
· obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans;
· apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries; and
· obtain domestic violence protective orders.

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/11845res19980630.html

One might argue that gays do have some of these rights, if the gay couples contact lawyers and/or sign a bunch of legal documents (not required of married couples) but I think that gay couples should not be obligated to go through the extra work.

Also see:

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/lgbt/civil-marriage.htm

Your tired arguments hold no water. Basically all you are claiming is that gays should have "equal" rights through marriage. You actually give us no compelling reason why gays should have the "right" to marry. Marriage is basically about children and the family biological unit. Gays don't have biological children. On the other hand, polygamists actually do beget children....yet we don't give them the right to marry either. Have you any clue why not? Why should gays have marriage rights when polygamists don't?

Almost everything on that list can be obtained by gays via other routes that marriage. Since gays don't normally have children, they don't need to stay home to take care of the children, they can go to work and get their own SS. Regarding filing tax returns, haven't you ever heard of the marriage penalty? That is one BS list of grievances.