gay marriage

Sorry if it offends anyone but I voted against gay mariage. While I have friends and family members who live alternative lifestyles, I do not think that marriage is the correct avenue. What this really boils down to is that people either 1) just want the title or 2) really are fighting for the rights that come along with marriage. If it is the former then the discussion is not even worth the trouble. This leaves the later.

I do believe that anyone who is not married gets the short end of the stick in many situatuions and that this should be addressed. For example in most hospitals, a patient in intensive care can only be visited by immedaite family. Not thats about stupid. The rule should be something like limiting the vistor list to three poeple of the patients choice. It should not be tied to mariage. This is just an example, but most (if not all) of the 'rights' that non-marrieds get shorted on that in turn should be afforded to others can and should be addressed by changing how those rights are granted. They have nothing to do with marriage at all. (Thats the VERY VERY short version of my point of view.)

Bottom line is that I do agree that many folks including gays get shorted. I dont think though that marriage is the way to eliminate the shortings. I think we ought to address the areas where these issue really rest and take care of them there. I don't think that marriage in and of itself is one of those issues.

Thanks for allowing me to speak my side. As I said up front it was not intended to piss anyone off. Just wanted to give my take on things.

BTW I am not a member of any political party or group of any sort. I do not vote based on the label next to a candidates name…


DB

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
as a nonchristian, its really hard for me to vote for a republican due to the national party's pandering to these groups.

You'll love this, shoeshine:

Feb. 24, 2004 | George Bush's proposed 2005 budget cuts funding for veterans' healthcare and public housing. It freezes funding for after-school programs and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grants. It provides less than one-sixth of the increase needed to close the budget shortfall in the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which helps low-income HIV patients access medical care and lifesaving drugs. It cuts state Medicaid funding by $1.5 billion.

Yet when it comes to abstinence education, money seems to be no object. Bush's budget recommends $270 million for programs that try to dissuade teenagers from having sex, double the amount spent last year. Much of that money would be given in grants to Christian organizations such as Youth for Christ and to anti-abortion groups operating so-called crisis pregnancy centers, outfits that masquerade as women's health clinics but deliver a strongly anti-abortion message and often medically inaccurate information.

Federally funded abstinence education has been around since 1996, when Clinton's welfare reform bill provided grants to states to teach abstinence. Under Bush, though, it has expanded dramatically, from $97.5 million when he took office to $270 million next year. Bush has also retooled abstinence-only funding so that most of it is given directly to private groups, several of them evangelical religious organizations, and he has put it under the same agency that runs his faith-based initiatives.

Salon magazine

why should we care. let he butt fuckers get married!! it wont hurt you. the gov just wants more tax money.

"dman, it's Hansel, He's so hot right now"
-my new DVD, ZOOLANDER
even though it is not a Tenacious as the last Dvd i bought… :D

Originally posted by RatBastard:
Sorry if it offends anyone but I voted against gay mariage. While I have friends and family members who live alternative lifestyles, I do not think that marriage is the correct avenue. What this really boils down to is that people either 1) just want the title or 2) really are fighting for the rights that come along with marriage. If it is the former then the discussion is not even worth the trouble. This leaves the later.

RB, I am happy to see your thoughts on this –they're straightfoward and well stated, allowing for discussion of the issue. Never anything wrong with that!

It is the later of your two options, I believe, that gay marriage proponents seek – the rights that come with marriage. And in fact, most of my gay friends whom I talk with about this don't care if there's gay marriage or not as long as civil unions come with those rights.

However, I don't think those things are what this debate is *really* about. My objection is to the pro-active attack of gay marriage by the right, as if 'traditional' marriage is the sacrosant bedrock upon which our nation is built (hey, doesn't 'traditional marriage' mean it's not allowed between races?). If that's the case, I want every divorced or twice-married congressperson and politician out of office NOW. Because they do not honor or abide by the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Further, it is through the *exclusion* of gays that I believe the amendment-proponents are painting homosexuals into a special class. And this burns me up, because this is their VERY argument against any kind of civil rights or protection laws for gays – that they don't need "special laws" because they are not a special or protected class.

Hmmmm, hypocrisy? CAN'T BE.

So the debate, for me, is about the loaded intentions at the heart of the amendment and the debate's complete unmasking of hyprocrisy upon hypocrisy by the "traditional marriage stalwarts."

42

Rat, what is the difference in your opinion between straight couples just wanting the title of marriage and gay couples wanting it? Just curious…

Unless you're married yourself, I don't think you're really qualified to define what marriage is and what marriage isn't.

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Unless you're married yourself, I don't think you're really qualified to define what marriage is and what marriage isn't.

then how is one supposed to decide whether to get married in the first place?

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
then how is one supposed to decide whether to get married in the first place?

Don't feed the trolls

Originally posted by Bags:


However, I don't think those things are what this debate is *really* about. My objection is to the pro-active attack of gay marriage by the right, as if 'traditional' marriage is the sacrosant bedrock upon which our nation is built (hey, doesn't 'traditional marriage' mean it's not allowed between races?). If that's the case, I want every divorced or twice-married congressperson and politician out of office NOW. Because they do not honor or abide by the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Further, it is through the *exclusion* of gays that I believe the amendment-proponents are painting homosexuals into a special class. And this burns me up, because this is their VERY argument against any kind of civil rights or protection laws for gays – that they don't need "special laws" because they are not a special or protected class.

divorce is a red herring. there are set rules for divorce, both civil and religious. . .with catholic divorce being the most rigorous. presumably, those rules were followed to the satisfaction of the courts and/or respective church. but marriage is, initially, a religious institution, and secondly, a civil institution. since the religious option is unavailable, the civil option is the only way to go.

this is a state matter that the federal government should not step into. however, bush, as leader of the country, should be allowed to voice his opinion on the matter. even kerry and edwards don't support gay marriage. his support for a constitutional amendment though is nonsense. people throw out this constitutional amendment thing every so often to show how much they really support something, but everyone knows that it won't happen. . ever.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Bags:
However, I don't think those things are what this debate is *really* about.

divorce is a red herring. but marriage is, initially, a religious institution, and secondly, a civil institution.

Precisely, so the U.S. government has NO business legislating on it, per the Constitution itself.

this is a state matter that the federal government should not step into. however, bush, as leader of the country, should be allowed to voice his opinion on the matter. even kerry and edwards don't support gay marriage. his support for a constitutional amendment though is nonsense. people throw out this constitutional amendment thing every so often to show how much they really support something, but everyone knows that it won't happen. . ever.

I agree that it should be a state matter. I don't give a fly about gay marriages, but do give a fly about a constitutional amendment *banning* them. Saying it won't happen does not alleviate G.W. of the responsibility of proposing it as a process. And for this reason I don't believe divorce is a red herring – either marriage is an immovable, legislatable institution that must be honored or it's not.

Yes, you can legally break a contract or break a marriage. I'm not saying it's *illegal* for people to divorce, but if you're going to support and state that marriage is sacrosanct, mean it.

And don't forget the race stuff…and the property stuff, since we're relying on two centuries of history. You know, because marriage doesn't evolve at all.

I think Kurt Vonnegut's suggestion from his novel SLAPSTICK is a much better proposal than either gay marriage or constitutional ammendments.

all Americans were issued new middle names consisting of "…a noun, the name of a flower or fruit or nut or vegetable or legume, or a bird or reptile or a fish, or mollusk, or a gem, or a mineral or a chemical element–connected by a hypen to a number between one and twenty." People with the same middle name–both noun and number–became siblings; those who shared only the noun became cousins. The names were randomly assigned, so that everyone's family instantly expanded to include ten thousand new siblings and one-hundred and ninety-thousand new cousins, scattered across the country. Under the new system, everyone "belonged" somewhere, everyone was part of a big family. People would be "Lonesome No More!".

Dupek "Daffodil Eleven" Chopra

Savage Love
by Dan Savage
February 25 - March 2, 2004
The Village Voice

Can you explain gay marriage? I lost a friend who's a lesbian for saying that marriage is meaningless. It seems to me that the point of gay marriage is to win official recognition that homos aren't second-class citizensâ??it would amount to a state-sanctioned "Gays are OK!" message. I've got no problem with gay marriage, but it seems like there are more pressing issues, like the shitty economy and the war, and an awful lot of energy is being spent trying to win something that doesn't matter except as a symbol. So what's the big deal? Admittedly I'm a straight guy, Dan, but does it really matter all that much? â??Tortured Acronym

Sure, I can explain gay marriage. Some gay and lesbian couples would like to marry for the same reasons many straight couples would like to marry or have already married: They're in love, they've made a commitment to each other, and they want the rights, privileges, and responsibilities (RPRs) that come with legal marriage. While some gays and lesbians are after the "Gays are OK!" message (no one has ever gone broke overestimating the insecurities of gays and lesbians), most gay couples don't just want the symbolism of marriage, TA, but those RPRsâ??and guess what? Both matter. "Marriage brings extremely important tangible and intangible protections," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, the organization leading the charge on gay marriage. "Tangible or intangible, neither is symbolic. To have clarity and security, to have people know who you are in relation to the primary person that you're building your life with, is no mere symbol. And gay people have the same need for that security, clarity, and by the way, equality, as non-gay people." As for your lesbian ex-friend, can't you see how listening to a straight guy dismiss gay marriage as trivial might infuriate a lesbian? Lesbians are famously easy to infuriate (there, I just did it myself), but being told by someone who can get married that gay marriage is a silly distraction from the economy or the war would anger the mellowest homo. Also, where do you get off assuming that gays and lesbians aren't active on other issues? Many of the same folks lining up to get married in San Francisco last week were folks who, without a doubt, marched against the war in Iraq and made donations to Howard Dean (R.I.P.). For a taste of why so many gays and lesbians give a shit about marriage, check out www.dearmary.com, a website devoted to shaming Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter. Before her father took over the world, Mary Cheney was a professional lesbian and an advocate for gay rights. Now, as her own father stumps for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would do lasting harm to his own daughter and all other American gays and lesbians, Mary Cheney is AWOL. At dearmary.com you'll find heart-wrenching letters that show why marriage rights for gays and lesbians are important. And anyone who's interested in sending Mary "My Heart Belongs to Daddy" Cheney a letter can do so via the website.

Originally posted by Bags:
www.dearmary.com

Link adjustment <img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/bestsmileys1/signs/17.gif" alt=" - " />

Thanks, Dupek – I have problems with formatting from my iMac at home, so I just left it as was in the article…odd.

<img src="http://www.priceless420.com/Pr022304sexbed.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/hauxfan/Signs/Group_7/30.gif" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by Bags:
Savage Love
by Dan Savage
February 25 - March 2, 2004
The Village Voice

Can you explain gay marriage? I lost a friend who's a lesbian for saying that marriage is meaningless. It seems to me that the point of gay marriage is to win official recognition that homos aren't second-class citizensâ??it would amount to a state-sanctioned "Gays are OK!" message. I've got no problem with gay marriage, but it seems like there are more pressing issues, like the shitty economy and the war, and an awful lot of energy is being spent trying to win something that doesn't matter except as a symbol. So what's the big deal? Admittedly I'm a straight guy, Dan, but does it really matter all that much? â??Tortured Acronym

I thought it was so they could have children and raise a family… ;)

Anyway, what's the big deal about gay marraige…Rhett's gay and he's been married for a while now.

42

We should have seen it coming:

Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay-Marry

BOSTONâ??Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.

"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."

Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."

Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.

"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."

The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.

The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional.

"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."

Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day.

Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support.

Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."

According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.

"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."

The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.

"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.

Look at what we've come to…..

A father watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was.

Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.

"Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked. "They're mating," her father replied.

"What do you call the spider on top, Daddy?" she asked. "That's a Daddy Longlegs," Her father answered.

So, the other one is a Mommy Longlegs?" The little girl asked. No," her father replied. "Both of them are Daddy Longlegs."

The little girl thought for a moment, then took her foot and stomped them flat.

"That might be OK in Massachusetts, but we're not having any of that crap here in Texas"