 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
If a CC looks close to happening, expect the Congress to pass an amendment to stop that from happening. |
That amendement would require 3/4's of the states 
quote:
If I'm reading your post right, this is the rationale behind Bush & Co. for their opposition to gay marriage? It sounds like a reason FOR it to me, in that a civil union isn't as beneficial to the couple as marriage would be (reduces commitment) and thus confers the standards of 2nd-class citizenship. |
I heard it from a talking head who opposed civil unions too so he wasn't talking specifically about marriage, and I'm not sure how close he is to the Bushies but he did present the main argument offered by opponents of both civil unions and gay marriage.
How are civil unions not as beneficial? I'm not familiar with Denmark so I'm going only on what this guy said, but according to him civil unions have already had a negative impact (I guess that means number of married people).
quote:
I don't see how the example of Denmark applies, as gay people are not seeking a form of marriage with less commitment -- especially those of us who are not interested in any kind of "separate but equal" civil union. |
If you are aware of Denmark wrt this debate, then you know better than me the opposition's POV. Like I said, I haven't looked into the matter at all and don't care. What angers me a bit is so many on your side are being hypocritically selfish, they want marriage for homosexuals but not polygamists - and I look forward to the day I can thee wed several babes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
unfortunately change appears to need to go slower than you ro I would like
does not meant hat it will not happen in oyur or my lifetiems
Jon Miller
(wuold much rather push was made on the abortion issue than the same-sex marriage issue)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
I can't be banned. It's been tried for how many years? Ip ban won't work, I'll just log in through a proxy. YOu can ban my name, but I'll just make a new one. Apparently only the communists on this board are allowed to make attacks, but then again, it's that way everywhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I sincerely doubt it
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
I don't understand why you guys (gays ) take this mariage thing that serious.
It's not as if homosexuality is forbidden at all or something.
Mariage has always been something between a man and a woman. Why not just be happy that after thousands of years homosexuality is accepted by most people, and forbidden by law.
Mariage is just a ceremony.
Besides that, this is not a matter of discrimination.
Every man is allowed to marry a woman and every woman is allowed to marry a man.
Both heterosexual and homosexual men aren't allowed to marry men, and both heterosexual and homosexual women aren't allowed to marry women.
It's not as if there are different laws for homosexuals then for heterosexuals.
The thing is just that mariage has been a man/woman issue for millenia.
And since it's a ceremony, people love to keep it that way. Why not invent your own gay-mariage?
A whole new ceremony.
I mean, homosexuals are accepted on the olympics, but there are gay-o-lympics nevertheless.
I'm sorry, I'm willing to give you guys anything you want. If you want to marry, you can marry IMHO.
I'm not the one who'll stop you or forbid you.
But please get real guys (gays) and stop making such a bing thing about all those non-issues.
There are gay-clubs, gay-disco's, gay-o-lympics, gay-parades. Gays shout "WE ARE DIFFERENT" all the time.
But as soon as hetero's say for one thing: "Ok, but mariage is ours" the entire gay-community becomes angry and all-about discrimination and stuff.
Get real, and settle down.
But oh well, since you guys apparantly prefer fighting over everything, as usual, I'll surrender. You can count me in your happy "Pro gay-mariage" camp.
So, what's the next thing you gays will start a fight over?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Doesn't the gay agenda have a leader who does a little bit of strategic thinking once in a while? If they hadn't tried to overturn the majority and go through the courts in Massachusetts, they would have gotten civil unions now and probably marriage sometime in the future without much fanfare.
What a huge screw-up. Their whole agenda is now a political toxic substance. |
Newsflash: the is no "gay agenda". There is no "gay leader".
Unlike most minorities, homosexuality cuts across every conceivable social boundry: age, gender, race, religion, nationality, income, class, political ideology - you name it. There is nothing we have in common except that we fall in love with people of the same gender.
This is why gay people think it's so rich when people decry the "gay agenda". Gay people couldn't form an agenda to save ourselves. The demographic is simply too broad. When you have a room filled with everything from black corporate executives and radical Latina feminists to retired white bus drivers, from revolutionaries to republicans, housewives to scientists -- it's hard to agree on anything, much less unify behind some coherent agenda or leadership.
The debate within the gay communy over civil unions vs. marriage is just one example. I vividly recall the acrimonious disagreement over what to call San Francisco's annual gay freedom parade -- I mean, the "Gay Bi Lesbian Transgendered Pride Parade". It almost scotched the thing. And that was just the local gay community in one city.
A national agenda? It's difficult to imagine, in the same way it's hard to conceive of heterosexuals all lining up behind some sort of heterosexual agenda. The demographics work against it. There's too little in common.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Why are there so many fags on this board? This is like a breeding ground for homos...oh wait I forgot they can't breed. Natures way of weeding out the genetically deficient? |
**whistles** Wow. And this from someone who registered in 1999. Call me a prude, but I was under the impression that the longer a person generally stayed within a community, the brighter they got — or, at the very least, better able to conceal their true nature. Heh. Guess the sheep's wool just came off the wolf, didn't it?
Your true nature revealed, ML. Ain't pretty, is it, folks? But, hey, it's what hate's all about. Ugliness.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
Last Conformist:
as far as I know interracial mariages have occured worldwide for all ages. In The Netherlands, for example, interracial mariages have never been forbidden.
To not allow interracial mariage is racism and discrimination. Since it says: "A white man can marry a woman, if she's white."
The law doesn't say: "A white man can marry a woman, if she's heterosexual."
Homosexuals are equal to the law as heterosexuals are.
The different races weren't equal to the law, to a black man other rules applied then to white men.
Since black men could only marry black women while white men could only marry white women.
Thus:
- there's no history of worldwide, ancient, ban on interracial mariage
- interracial mariage IS discrimination
concluding: there is a difference.
But again, I don't want to be a stay in the way for two people if they want to marry. I would hate anyone who would tell me that I shouldn't have been allowed to marry my wife for sure as well.
It's just that I wonder, why not just allow the heterosexuals to have their marriage?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
I agree with CyberShy, but mostly because I think that marriage is a stupid concept anyway, getting old and becoming more and more outdated.
Ofc, the economical and "political" benefits would have to be given to gay couples as well.
I would like to see gay people developing alternative ways of living together (for a lifetime) and reporting that to the heterosexual world who seem to have stuck in this "have to marry" thinking with all the traditional values that come with this. Ofc, I would NOT force this upon anyone and so support any gay marriage movement. Overall I believe in equality.
The worst example of marriage was at my friends', when everybody talked about children and having babies and such... It was absolutely disgusting and I would never marry under such circumstances. This makes it seem that life after that is over and follows a predicted path of destruction...
Anyway, how could such an alternative way look like?
When I think about starting a "tradition" I think there have to be moments of publicity, joy and proudness. There would have to be some sort of ceremony when 2 people decide to live together. This could be by taking the whole family to a place you have never visited before and celebrate there, so as to symbolize the exploration of new grounds within the relationship.
The annual reoccurance of this day should then be celebrated in a reduced way, by e.g. visiting places that you _have visited_ together over the last year so that this gives a good summary of your common memories.
However, I would also like to see the "divorce" becoming something different and be seen as normal in everyone's life. Demonising divorce certainly doesn't help anyone. I'd like to see a ceremony that frees (adopted if possible) kids of the believe that they are now on their own. This last step that is taken together should be "celebrated" in some way too and the clear sign of this should be that everything that was created during the relationship is still being cared for by both.
I hope this relieves people of the stress to stay together as long as possible until it is absolutely not possible anymore to continue and part in anger and hatred.
Obviously the big disadvantage is the lack of security, because every day together could be the last day. That's why I think it is important that divorce needs to be "celebrated" as well.
Anyway an alternative set of rules for living together would probably do good to the whole world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Starchild
|
 |
a raving alcoholic drama queen with a penchant for the biosciences
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Why not just be happy that after thousands of years homosexuality is accepted by most people, and forbidden by law. |
Oh joy is me. The burning gay people at the stake thing is so passé these days. Thank you society for choosing to instead treat me as a second class citizen.
quote:
Every man is allowed to marry a woman and every woman is allowed to marry a man.
Both heterosexual and homosexual men aren't allowed to marry men, and both heterosexual and homosexual women aren't allowed to marry women. |
But heterosexual men dont' tend to fall in love and want to marry other men. Straight women don't tend to want to walk down the aisle with another lady in tow.
quote:
It's not as if there are different laws for homosexuals then for heterosexuals. |
You can bet your cojones there are. I can't even give blood despite having a safer sex life than a lot of my straight friends.
quote:
I mean, homosexuals are accepted on the olympics, but there are gay-o-lympics nevertheless.
I'm sorry, I'm willing to give you guys anything you want. If you want to marry, you can marry IMHO.
I'm not the one who'll stop you or forbid you.
But please get real guys (gays) and stop making such a bing thing about all those non-issues.
There are gay-clubs, gay-disco's, gay-o-lympics, gay-parades. Gays shout "WE ARE DIFFERENT" all the time.
So, what's the next thing you gays will start a fight over? |
You've got no clue what it's like to be a minority, do you? Especially one as small as being gay (hello, like 90% of the world isn't gay). We have gay clubs and bars, gay university societies, gay games because it's our chance to actually be with other gay people. To be in an environment where no one's going to judge you on your sexuality. I fully support people being able to come together and carve out a little bit of breathing space. It's not like these things are exclusive you know. I've been to black R&B clubs and straight people are fully welcome at gay events. Dang, there's even places where conservative white guys can hang out but their beer tends to be crap.
The thing I don't get is why people can't understand this amazingly simple concept:
I want to fall in love with someone. When I do, I want to marry them. Not to make a political statement, not to overthrown society or piss off a bunch of old ladies who go to church. I want to marry them because I love them. Because I want to get everyone I know and care about together, in one place, for one day, to show that I care for someone enough to devote my life to them. The fact that it's a man shouldn't make one bloody bit of difference.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2004 09:45
on you. The lefties can trash people on the right, why not some blunt language from ML?
At least polygamists are currently allowed to marry (unless they are gay polygamists).
|