Gay Marriage Ban

ComeToTX

I'm constantly amazed that some of the things written here are on a PJ board.

Some of you must be hearing different things in the songs. Or you just hate everything they are about, stand for and sing about.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

ComeToTX wrote:

I'm constantly amazed that some of the things written here are on a PJ board.

Some of you must be hearing different things in the songs. Or you just hate everything they are about, stand for and sing about.

I used to think that maybe people just didn't care what the songs were ABOUT, but just liked the songs. But then I thought "I'm not a paying member of a fanclub of a band I only sorta like".

I don't really get it either.

whygohome

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

I'm constantly amazed that some of the things written here are on a PJ board.

Some of you must be hearing different things in the songs. Or you just hate everything they are about, stand for and sing about.

I used to think that maybe people just didn't care what the songs were ABOUT, but just liked the songs. But then I thought "I'm not a paying member of a fanclub of a band I only sorta like".

I don't really get it either.

We're not here for that long; surely, not long enough to live a life of hate and ignorance. What's 80 or so years with respect to a few hundred million?

Come to send, not condescend
Transcendental consequence
Is to transcend where we are
Who are we? Who we are
Trampled moss on your souls
Changes all you're a part
Seen it all, not at all
Can't defend fucked up man
Take me a for a ride before we leave...
Circumstance, clapping hands
Driving winds, happenstance
Off the track, in the mud
That's the moss in the aforementioned verse

Just a little time, before we leave...
Stop light, plays its part
So I would say you've got a part
What's your part? Who you are
You are who, who you are

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Godfather. wrote:

:fp: here we go again,same ol' debate same ol' out-come we all know where each other stand and we know we can't change each others minds so there is no reason to call each other names...am I right ?
"give me an AHMEN ! brothers and sisters" and lets go back to trashing politicans and such insted of each other....come on now ..let's play nice.

Godfather.

and then you go on to say:

Godfather. wrote:

and you believe what???

catefrances

pandora wrote:

catefrances wrote:

and if it ever is you want it called something else because why again...?

You presume I want this ...
I am speaking of the preservers of marriage those who voted loud and clear yesterday,
I understand their position and see the hinderance that is happening
continuing down this path.

My stance is I would like to see gays have equal rights today and by all means not less rights
for people as the vote brought yesterday.

By making a new gay union term to take into all the future years to come
leaving marriage as it was created and intended, a union of a man and woman,
equal rights will not be lost but gained and perhaps even very soon....
not decades.

That would be good for all unions and the country.

then why dont you tell us exactly what it is you do want pandora instead of talking in ever diminishing circles. where is it you stand on the terminology? youve basically been saying lets allow the gays to marry(cause youre down with that) but lets not actually call it marriage(because thousands of years of tradition dictate that term is the property of man/woman marriage) lets give it a fantastically awesome name... any name but not marriage because thats the preserve of the straights. thats what im getting from your posts. and im not the only one so either youre being deliberately vague or the majority of us here have mistaken what it is youve been saying. please clarify this for me so i at least can move on in understanding.


the english language is the mose fluid language in history. it absorbs words from everywhere... it sometimes morphs their meaning into something else whilst still managing to retain the original definition. it even eliminates words.. and none of this has caused the downfall of civilisation as we know it... EVER. so why such a stranglehold on the definition of marriage? isnt it about time we modernise the word and drag all the preservers into the present?

brianlux

Not only does the language need to be brought into the 21st century, as Catefrances has pointed out, but we need to bring our heads and hearts into the 21st century- or even the 20th century because I'm pretty sure this issue was already moving ahead at the end of the period of time. And we need to stop playing games with semantics- we all know what marriage is. Why call it "a union" or "bonding" or "tranquil domestic partnering of two human being of undetermined sexual orientation"?

Horseshit- it's marriage.

Pepe Silvia

60% of the voters didn't realize the amendment wasn't just about gay marriage but any relationship that wasn't a legal, official man/woman marriage.

also, the only places i saw advertising about this before the vote were church signs

redrock

catefrances wrote:

the english language is the mose fluid language in history. it absorbs words from everywhere... it sometimes morphs their meaning into something else whilst still managing to retain the original definition. it even eliminates words.. and none of this has caused the downfall of civilisation as we know it... EVER. so why such a stranglehold on the definition of marriage? isnt it about time we modernise the word and drag all the preservers into the present?

'Gay' being a prime example! In the other thread, I mention the etymology of 'marriage'. It's a 'recent' word that had a much more 'open' meaning than what we would like to think now. Oh.. and the word 'marriage' is not mentioned in the bible.

I'm surprised on how some can be so focussed on a term that has evolved over the ages to our current meaning and an 'institution' that has also evolved (and regressed as well). Same sex marriage (or rather unions as the word marriage did not exist) was recognized in the same manner as a union between man and woman in ancient times. Then christianity became more influential and 'marriage' became some frame for procreation.

I am also surprised that some say they accept, even embrace, same sex marriage but don't want to call it that. Is this really 'embracing' and fully accepting? Is there more to this?

Prince Of Dorkness

pandora wrote:

I am speaking of the preservers of marriage

Well, but no, you're not. And you know it. So drop that crap.

You're speaking of a bunch of prejudiced people who claimed ownership of both the word and concept of marriage with no historical facts to back that up. They claim to be "preservers of marriage" when they're really just a bunch of hateful assholes who get a kick out of putting themselves atop a mountain of their own creation.

They're not "preserving" anything. Marriage has been used for many things, including giving your daughter as breeding stock to old men in exchange for money or goats.

If they really wanted to "preserve" marriage they would be more interested in making divorce illegal, closing down the wedding chapels where drunk vacationers stagger in to get married in Vegas. They would have lost their minds over the "marriage as publicity stunt" by Kim Kardashian and most of all, they would be carrying burning torches through the streets upon finding out that Maggie Gallagher, the leader of NOM, is in one of those "money for green card" marriages with a man from India that she's only met a few times (and although her Wikipedia page tries to suggest they have a child together, she had that kid out of wedlock before she met her "husband").

So nobody is "preserving marriage," they're just doing their best to stay legally better than the gays. Because they're assholes. And no other reason.

By the way... tell your "preserver of marriage" friends that gay marriages have a MUCH lower divorce rate. Much. That always blows their tops. And I love seeing those people burst into fits of tears. Warms my heart.

usamamasan1

ComeToTX wrote:

I'm constantly amazed that some of the things written here are on a PJ board.

Some of you must be hearing different things in the songs. Or you just hate everything they are about, stand for and sing about.

This is a forum for non-pj related discussion.

You didn't know that? I'm amazed.
That's why I'm here. To help.

Otherwise it's a circle jerk vacuum of thought.

Woot

redrock

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

I am speaking of the preservers of marriage

They're not "preserving" anything. Marriage has been used for many things, including giving your daughter as breeding stock to old men in exchange for money or goats.

If they really wanted to "preserve" marriage they would be more interested in making divorce illegal, closing down the wedding chapels where drunk vacationers stagger in to get married in Vegas. They would have lost their minds over the "marriage as publicity stunt" by Kim Kardashian..... ...

Agree - this is not about preserving an institution but preserving their own values (usually christian based - at least in the western world), disregarding others.

redrock

pandora wrote:

it matters not the name of the union now or then what matters is rights.

Exactly - so why try to suggest a marriage should be called something else because one set of 'participants' does not fit in one's values or morals. Marriage is a good enough word for all.

ONCE DEVIDED

Preservers of marriage

What do you beleive ???

I preserve my marriage that's all any of us can do, and NO RELIGOUS INSTITUTION can
layy claim to preserving any marriage. That's a couples job

What do I beleive
I beleive in the rights of the individual
Not in rights of religous group to control mine or anyone elses life.
Marriage is a personnel choice. A religion can lay claim to not allowing it as a part of their own practices but that's all
If a gay couple wants to marry then why not

I give massive kudos to Obama today. Another big step in American politics
The real American public needs to step up and support it or the religous right will strip people's rights as they always have

pandora

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

catefrances wrote:

and if it ever is you want it called something else because why again...?

You presume I want this ...
I am speaking of the preservers of marriage those who voted loud and clear yesterday,
I understand their position and see the hinderance that is happening
continuing down this path.

My stance is I would like to see gays have equal rights today and by all means not less rights
for people as the vote brought yesterday.

By making a new gay union term to take into all the future years to come
leaving marriage as it was created and intended, a union of a man and woman,
equal rights will not be lost but gained and perhaps even very soon....
not decades.

That would be good for all unions and the country.

then why dont you tell us exactly what it is you do want pandora instead of talking in ever diminishing circles. where is it you stand on the terminology? youve basically been saying lets allow the gays to marry(cause youre down with that) but lets not actually call it marriage(because thousands of years of tradition dictate that term is the property of man/woman marriage) lets give it a fantastically awesome name... any name but not marriage because thats the preserve of the straights. thats what im getting from your posts. and im not the only one so either youre being deliberately vague or the majority of us here have mistaken what it is youve been saying. please clarify this for me so i at least can move on in understanding.


the english language is the mose fluid language in history. it absorbs words from everywhere... it sometimes morphs their meaning into something else whilst still managing to retain the original definition. it even eliminates words.. and none of this has caused the downfall of civilisation as we know it... EVER. so why such a stranglehold on the definition of marriage? isnt it about time we modernise the word and drag all the preservers into the present?

your answer was there you perhaps just didn't want to see it :?
blinded by the light? mama told me not to look into the sun ...
but that's where the answers are

too much of a "diminishing circle" for ya ... always true to character cate,
not a good thing at all, your bias is showing yet again.

Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

:fp: here we go again,same ol' debate same ol' out-come we all know where each other stand and we know we can't change each others minds so there is no reason to call each other names...am I right ?
"give me an AHMEN ! brothers and sisters" and lets go back to trashing politicans and such insted of each other....come on now ..let's play nice.

Godfather.

and then you go on to say:

Godfather. wrote:

and you believe what???

really I don't care who marries who,what does bother me are the attacks on religen (God) while I agree some religens have some rules I don't agree with but at the end of the day God is still God.
it just seems to be an ez out for argument by gay supporters to blame God for their struggles.
I don't understand how two men can find sexual pleasure with each other but I guess that's just me so it also makes hard for me to understand a marriage between to same sex people,I don't need to give a reason why because it's just the way I feel about it in fact I don't think I could give you/anybody a reason that would make you undrstand my feelings on it I also know it's not my position to tell people like POD they can't marry the one that they love..I sure don't understan it at all and I have always seen marriage as union between a man and a woman but I also can't tell you how gay people feel abouit each other so for the most part I have been trying to keep my comments to myself..untell God is blammed anyway or someone like Cliffy and a few others comes on here calling people names in support of gay rights and feelings he couldn't possibly understand unless they are gay themselfs...so that's it in a nutshell understanding is a two way street.




Godfather.

ONCE DEVIDED

Let's take god right out of the equation then
No more anti gay stances from those of religous based on their beliefs
Let's move to RIGHTS
do you beleive that everyone should hav the same rights
If you do how can you argue against 2people who love each other celebrating their love and commitment to each other as the rest of society does
I'm not gay. Not interested at all. I have a loving wife who is my world. I'm so lucky and would be shattered if I couldnt have had a ceremony attended by all we love and respect to devote myself to her

If we are going to argue that 2 males or for that case 2 females in a relationship cannot create new life maybe we should be banning people who are infertile from marriage

MayDay10

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

I am speaking of the preservers of marriage

Well, but no, you're not. And you know it. So drop that crap.

You're speaking of a bunch of prejudiced people who claimed ownership of both the word and concept of marriage with no historical facts to back that up. They claim to be "preservers of marriage" when they're really just a bunch of hateful assholes who get a kick out of putting themselves atop a mountain of their own creation.

They're not "preserving" anything. Marriage has been used for many things, including giving your daughter as breeding stock to old men in exchange for money or goats.

If they really wanted to "preserve" marriage they would be more interested in making divorce illegal, closing down the wedding chapels where drunk vacationers stagger in to get married in Vegas. They would have lost their minds over the "marriage as publicity stunt" by Kim Kardashian and most of all, they would be carrying burning torches through the streets upon finding out that Maggie Gallagher, the leader of NOM, is in one of those "money for green card" marriages with a man from India that she's only met a few times (and although her Wikipedia page tries to suggest they have a child together, she had that kid out of wedlock before she met her "husband").

So nobody is "preserving marriage," they're just doing their best to stay legally better than the gays. Because they're assholes. And no other reason.

By the way... tell your "preserver of marriage" friends that gay marriages have a MUCH lower divorce rate. Much. That always blows their tops. And I love seeing those people burst into fits of tears. Warms my heart.

this is a great post. Can't say it any better.

I wonder if some bigots 50 years ago justified making blacks sitting in the back of the bus, or drink out of their own drinking fountains by saying things like "they will all be together in the back of the bus, they will all have that to themselves in common it will be beautiful"

bottom line it is discriminatory. People against this are either homophobic, blinded by an exclusionary interpretation of a religion, or just hateful toward certain others for whatever reason (nature, nurture, deeply repressed homosexual feelings, etc). Hiding behind "preserving the word marriage" is completely transparent. What are you preserving it from? Mind you there were also "traditions" that needed to be altered, like all other general civil rights (women voting, African-Americans being treated like human beings, etc....) Im sure the Peoples Republic of China has some great "traditions" like the 'one child policy'

We need to evolve as a society. We are almost ready. This vote in North Carolina is most disappointing.

catefrances

pandora wrote:

your answer was there you perhaps just didn't want to see it :?
blinded by the light? mama told me not to look into the sun ...
but that's where the answers are

too much of a "diminishing circle" for ya ... always true to character cate,
not a good thing at all, your bias is showing yet again.

oh for fucks sake pandora why cant you ever just answer the question and stop hiding in the shadows the way you do. i know you support equal marriage.. we ALL know. but do you support gay marriage BY THAT NAME? or are you one of the 'preservers'? i dont see the question being a diffcult one. i get more sense out of my 5 year old grand daughter than i get from you... probably cause she has not yet learnt the art of obfuscation the way you have.


and if me wanting clear answers is me being true to my character then yahoo for me cause i will do it every time.

pandora

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

I am speaking of the preservers of marriage

Well, but no, you're not. And you know it. So drop that crap.

You're speaking of a bunch of prejudiced people who claimed ownership of both the word and concept of marriage with no historical facts to back that up. They claim to be "preservers of marriage" when they're really just a bunch of hateful assholes who get a kick out of putting themselves atop a mountain of their own creation.

They're not "preserving" anything. Marriage has been used for many things, including giving your daughter as breeding stock to old men in exchange for money or goats.

If they really wanted to "preserve" marriage they would be more interested in making divorce illegal, closing down the wedding chapels where drunk vacationers stagger in to get married in Vegas. They would have lost their minds over the "marriage as publicity stunt" by Kim Kardashian and most of all, they would be carrying burning torches through the streets upon finding out that Maggie Gallagher, the leader of NOM, is in one of those "money for green card" marriages with a man from India that she's only met a few times (and although her Wikipedia page tries to suggest they have a child together, she had that kid out of wedlock before she met her "husband").

So nobody is "preserving marriage," they're just doing their best to stay legally better than the gays. Because they're assholes. And no other reason.

By the way... tell your "preserver of marriage" friends that gay marriages have a MUCH lower divorce rate. Much. That always blows their tops. And I love seeing those people burst into fits of tears. Warms my heart.

I am stating, I am identifying the problem, here is the hinderance to progress
the preservers of marriage will protect to have it remain a union between a man and a woman.
This is not crap as we saw yesterday. This movement may even escalate.

your words...
"just a bunch of hateful assholes"

Who is just this? and who is prejudice? do you see yourself? and read your words?
How can you even claim anything about others when you do the same?
In my heart tenfold is your hate towards others than anyone
I have ever spoke with on gay rights.

No legally everything will be equal...
equal amendment, equal rights, an equal union only different by name because
marriage is the union of a man and a woman
this where the conflict lies...

not in granting equal rights nor the union of gays
but using and changing the heterosexual union that was created for,
has existed for thousands of years.

The word gay had been a slang term long before it became more popular in use
in the 50's 60's and has grown from there. It is a perfect example of a new term
for group of people identifying themselves, defining themselves and showing pride
for who they are.
Now a defining term for their union needs to be found so equal rights
are given now, so in 50, 60, 100 years the use will be as gay is now,
comon place and accepted. Perhaps even, as I have said, outnumbering the
traditional word, union of marriage.

Beyond that as humanity grows to a one gender, sexuality will no longer be an issue at all
and hopefully we can let go of the hate and find peace as a species.

Cliffy6745

Godfather. wrote:

untell God is blammed anyway or someone like Cliffy and a few others comes on here calling people names in support of gay rights and feelings he couldn't possibly understand unless they are gay themselfs...so that's it in a nutshell understanding is a two way street.


Godfather.

I'm gay now? Or am I just not reading this correctly?