EQUALITY IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE. Read the Constitution, people.
It disgusts me that, as a country, we are still capable of such discrimination.
This is a simple civil rights issue. How is this different from saying that black people can't marry white people? Do we not look at THOSE times and think they're barbaric??
Guess what! If you don't like gay marriage, NOBODY'S ASKING YOU TO GET ONE. Gay marriages do NOTHING to diminish the value of straight marriages. All they do is promote more happiness between someone and their chosen partner. OPINIONS LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT BE TURNED INTO LAWS.
It enfuriates me that people go out of their way to promote inequality and speak out about the ways that two people choose to love each other. I am so devastated that Prop 8 passed.
2006 Washington D.C. 2008 Washington D.C. 2010 Cleveland 2012 Philadelphia 2013 Brooklyn 1, Baltimore 2016 NYC 1 2021 Ohana Encore 1
i agree. better than just calling somebody a bigot, like you do in every reply you wrote to this thread. go back to suny binghamton and get a new word from your poli-sci prof hahahah
This lady seems to sum it up best in the first two minutes of this video. Skip ahead to about the 4:05 mark if you want to avoid the mayor's speech and hear from a person who'd be affected by this vote.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
i agree. better than just calling somebody a bigot, like you do in every reply you wrote to this thread. go back to suny binghamton and get a new word from your poli-sci prof hahahah
What can I say, I call it like it is. At least I'm not lying to myself.
Just so you know, attacking my school is a logical fallacy; it has nothing to do with the argument but you think by calling my school bad, which it is clearly not, somehow my arguments are wrong. I believe that is an ad hominem. Just so you know, the New York Times just wrote an article about Binghamton being one of the best schools in the country for its price, and it also has one of the best poli-sci departments in the world (http://www.politicalstudies.org/pdf/psr/hix.pdf). But that's neither here nor there, because I'm right regardless of where I attend school.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
i agree. better than just calling somebody a bigot, like you do in every reply you wrote to this thread. go back to suny binghamton and get a new word from your poli-sci prof hahahah
Oh yea I forgot.
Bigot.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
Another thing that's always funny about this topic is how all these people who are against gay marriage is how they treat or react to marriage like its some holy, sacred thing. What are the statistics about the divorce rate in our society? Like half or something like that? Yeah some big sacred thing.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
May your children turn out gay and have the right to marry their spouses!!!
So far it hasn't happened, but if it does I hope my kids find a loving and caring partner instead of having to fake a hetero relationship and live in misery or fear.
Would you beat they gay out of them?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
So far it hasn't happened, but if it does I hope my kids find a loving and caring partner instead of having to fake a hetero relationship and live in misery or fear.
LOL, my apologies then! Although I'm not entirely sure wishing someone gay as a curse is a good sign of where we are with this issue. I suppose the reason being gay is a curse is because of how they're treated by the narrow-minded (like the thread starter).
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
LOL, my apologies then! Although I'm not entirely sure wishing someone gay as a curse is a good sign of where we are with this issue. I suppose the reason being gay is a curse is because of how they're treated by the narrow-minded (like the thread starter).
I thinking that the child would eventually find their place in the world while parents would be ones with alot of soul searching to do. Only the parents would look at it as a curse and if thats the case they deserve to suffer.
However, I'm in the huge minority here and am also glad 8 passed. I can understand your POV, but I also think that babies have rights too. I think the unborn baby has a right to be born and not be terminated and also has the right to be born to a loving mother and father.
Then you and I can't be friends....SORRY!
Tell me something, why the hell does it bother people what other people do with their bodies and who they choose to marry?
And so the lion fell in love with the lamb...,"
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
Tell me something, why the hell does it bother people what other people do with their bodies and minds?
tis all about control pam. we all have to be the same dont you know. think the same. look the same. you cant be different or have a mind of your own. its not allowable that someone be an individual. society rules. anything to the contrary is blasphemous and needs to be eradicated anyway possible.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So millions of voters went to the polls a couple of days ago and said YES to bigotry, YES to discrimination, YES to second-class status for same-sex couples. Awesome :rolleyes:
If marriage is a religious institution, the state should wash it's hands of it entirely. If marriage is a civil institution, then religion is not and should not be involved, and arguments against same sex unions become an irrelevance.
Here's an interesting take from Johnathan Rauch on the New York Times' Nov. 7 "Opinionater" blog.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Here's an interesting take from Johnathan Rauch on the New York Times' Nov. 7 "Opinionater" blog.
The author makes some very good points. My oldest brother is gay and he and I have had this discussion before. In my opinion the gay community is going about this the wrong way. Those that oppose gay marriage do so because it states in the bible that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman before God. So be it, if that is the case then the federal government nor state government have any right getting involved in marriage since it is an institution of the church. Use their own words against them. The government then has no right to issue marriage licenses as it would be in direct conflict with the separation of church and state. All couples then, hetero or homosexual, when then be issued a civil union by their respective states.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The author makes some very good points. My oldest brother is gay and he and I have had this discussion before. In my opinion the gay community is going about this the wrong way. Those that oppose gay marriage do so because it states in the bible that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman before God. So be it, if that is the case then the federal government nor state government have any right getting involved in marriage since it is an institution of the church. Use their own words against them. The government then has no right to issue marriage licenses as it would be in direct conflict with the separation of church and state. All couples then, hetero or homosexual, when then be issued a civil union by their respective states.
i disagree.
i do NOT think the church has the right to the term 'marriage'....and why should we all have to bend over backwards to accommodate the religious? it think it is symbolic and important for homosexuals to have rights to marriage just as heterosexuals. as of right NOW, heterosexuals can go to the courthouse and get a legal marriage, outside the church. no one balks at that. no one is pressing religious institutions to perform homosexual marriages, not in the least. we are looking for LEGAL rights. it may be semantics, but sometimes.....words ARE important. i do not believe we all should bend to the will of the religious, or those gender biased towards marriage. just my opinion of course....but i say keep fighting the good fight. it IS the right of all.
i disagree.
i do NOT think the church has the right to the term 'marriage'....and why should we all have to bend over backwards to accommodate the religious? it think it is symbolic and important for homosexuals to have rights to marriage just as heterosexuals. as of right NOW, heterosexuals can go to the courthouse and get a legal marriage, outside the church. no one balks at that. no one is pressing religious institutions to perform homosexual marriages, not in the least. we are looking for LEGAL rights. it may be semantics, but sometimes.....words ARE important. i do not believe we all should bend to the will of the religious, or those gender biased towards marriage. just my opinion of course....but i say keep fighting the good fight. it IS the right of all.
i think the point is what battle is most important? ... if the primary purpose is to gain the same benefits and rights that heterosexual couple receives - then they need to focus on that and not the symbolic nature of a word that the religious zealots are holding onto with dear life ... at the end of the day - whether the legal term is civil union or whatever - people will refer to a gay couple as being married ... that's the only word for it ...
choosing to fight the definition of the word "marriage" is a much harder battle to win imo ... the zealots have a lot of money to fight this battle but focusing on equal and human right issues is a much harder to defend from the zealot side ...
i agree with you wholeheartedly in that no one group should own that word however, i think first and foremost is to get the legal recognition of the union and to be afforded the same rights as every other couple ...
i think the point is what battle is most important? ... if the primary purpose is to gain the same benefits and rights that heterosexual couple receives - then they need to focus on that and not the symbolic nature of a word that the religious zealots are holding onto with dear life ... at the end of the day - whether the legal term is civil union or whatever - people will refer to a gay couple as being married ... that's the only word for it ...
choosing to fight the definition of the word "marriage" is a much harder battle to win imo ... the zealots have a lot of money to fight this battle but focusing on equal and human right issues is a much harder to defend from the zealot side ...
i agree with you wholeheartedly in that no one group should own that word however, i think first and foremost is to get the legal recognition of the union and to be afforded the same rights as every other couple ...
i understand....and agree, to a point. however, if they are going to battle for it....and even getting 'civil unions' will be a battle, why not go for the full prize? i do not want to see our citizens kowtow to religious groups, it should have ZERO bearing. speration of church and state...yada, yada, yada. hell, gay marriage is legal in MA. it CAN be done! hey, if the vast majority of gays want to support civil unions as their choice, i am all for it! however, if they want marriage, i am all for it too! however, bottomline...it just pisses me off b/c this IS a civil rights issue, plain and simple....and while we have fought well with the gender issue, the color issue...for whatever reason the sexual orientation issue seems to be the most difficult. i'm sorry, but i do not believe ANY of us should have to bend our own freedoms to cater to the religious. that is NOT what our governemnt was founded on. so yea...none too eloquently, but....FUCK THAT!
i understand....and agree, to a point. however, if they are going to battle for it....and even getting 'civil unions' will be a battle, why not go for the full prize? i do not want to see our citizens kowtow to religious groups, it should have ZERO bearing. speration of church and state...yada, yada, yada. hell, gay marriage is legal in MA. it CAN be done! hey, if the vast majority of gays want to support civil unions as their choice, i am all for it! however, if they want marriage, i am all for it too! however, bottomline...it just pisses me off b/c this IS a civil rights issue, plain and simple....and while we have fought well with the gender issue, the color issue...for whatever reason the sexual orientation issue seems to be the most difficult. i'm sorry, but i do not believe ANY of us should have to bend our own freedoms to cater to the religious. that is NOT what our governemnt was founded on. so yea...none too eloquently, but....FUCK THAT!
well ... if it's the difference between winning and losing ...
but yeah - i agree 100% ... it just goes to show how much further we have to go ...
i understand....and agree, to a point. however, if they are going to battle for it....and even getting 'civil unions' will be a battle, why not go for the full prize? i do not want to see our citizens kowtow to religious groups, it should have ZERO bearing. speration of church and state...yada, yada, yada. hell, gay marriage is legal in MA. it CAN be done! hey, if the vast majority of gays want to support civil unions as their choice, i am all for it! however, if they want marriage, i am all for it too! however, bottomline...it just pisses me off b/c this IS a civil rights issue, plain and simple....and while we have fought well with the gender issue, the color issue...for whatever reason the sexual orientation issue seems to be the most difficult. i'm sorry, but i do not believe ANY of us should have to bend our own freedoms to cater to the religious. that is NOT what our governemnt was founded on. so yea...none too eloquently, but....FUCK THAT!
Because they have a far greater chance of winning the battle for civil unions than they do marriage. besides government really has no right to get involved in marriage.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
well ... if it's the difference between winning and losing ...
but yeah - i agree 100% ... it just goes to show how much further we have to go ...
hey, i am not asking you or anyone else to agree with me. as i said, i 100% support whatever the homosexuals want in that regard. my only 'point' is they DO have the right to want MARRIAGE, and it ulitmately is their battle to decide what they most want. i support whatever choice they make.
and HELL YES...we certainly do!
btw - i have a read alot about this topic on this board lately, lots of threads, etc...and someone said that IF homosexuals went and got married in MA and then returned to any other state...that the marriage would HAVE to be recognized b/c states must respect marriage licenses from everywhere. i honestly don't know if this is true or not...and it certainly is no 'solution'...but if it IS true, i think a massive amount of gay marriages happening in MA and then going elsewhere...would just prove how ridiculous it all is to 'ban' it. just a thought.....
Because they have a far greater chance of winning the battle for civil unions than they do marriage. besides government really has no right to get involved in marriage.
i understood your pov...and i clearly expressed mine. obviously, i politely agree to disagree.
Comments
actually it's from the bible
not sure which came first, this letter or the west wing but....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU
It disgusts me that, as a country, we are still capable of such discrimination.
This is a simple civil rights issue. How is this different from saying that black people can't marry white people? Do we not look at THOSE times and think they're barbaric??
Guess what! If you don't like gay marriage, NOBODY'S ASKING YOU TO GET ONE. Gay marriages do NOTHING to diminish the value of straight marriages. All they do is promote more happiness between someone and their chosen partner. OPINIONS LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT BE TURNED INTO LAWS.
It enfuriates me that people go out of their way to promote inequality and speak out about the ways that two people choose to love each other. I am so devastated that Prop 8 passed.
2008 Washington D.C.
2010 Cleveland
2012 Philadelphia
2013 Brooklyn 1, Baltimore
2016 NYC 1
2021 Ohana Encore 1
straight up their asses, that is.
wake the fuck up. people come in all shapes, sizes, colors and sexual orientation. which part confuses you the most?
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Couldn't agree with you more.
Focus On Your Own Fucking Family, right?
Hail, Hail!!!
May your children turn out gay and have the right to marry their spouses!!!
Great post.
routine was the theme..
there aint gonna be any middle any more
What can I say, I call it like it is. At least I'm not lying to myself.
Just so you know, attacking my school is a logical fallacy; it has nothing to do with the argument but you think by calling my school bad, which it is clearly not, somehow my arguments are wrong. I believe that is an ad hominem. Just so you know, the New York Times just wrote an article about Binghamton being one of the best schools in the country for its price, and it also has one of the best poli-sci departments in the world (http://www.politicalstudies.org/pdf/psr/hix.pdf). But that's neither here nor there, because I'm right regardless of where I attend school.
Oh yea I forgot.
Bigot.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
So far it hasn't happened, but if it does I hope my kids find a loving and caring partner instead of having to fake a hetero relationship and live in misery or fear.
Would you beat they gay out of them?
Not at all. Just a dig at the thread starter.
LOL, my apologies then! Although I'm not entirely sure wishing someone gay as a curse is a good sign of where we are with this issue. I suppose the reason being gay is a curse is because of how they're treated by the narrow-minded (like the thread starter).
I thinking that the child would eventually find their place in the world while parents would be ones with alot of soul searching to do. Only the parents would look at it as a curse and if thats the case they deserve to suffer.
Then you and I can't be friends....SORRY!
Tell me something, why the hell does it bother people what other people do with their bodies and who they choose to marry?
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
tis all about control pam. we all have to be the same dont you know.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If marriage is a religious institution, the state should wash it's hands of it entirely. If marriage is a civil institution, then religion is not and should not be involved, and arguments against same sex unions become an irrelevance.
It's that simple. Make your mind up.
There's something wrong with this sentence. It makes me angry.
Here's a hint:
I voted against Prop 8, as did many others. Thanks for lumping us all together.
I thought I came here to stay
We're all just visiting
All just breaking like waves.."
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/15/06
dont you mean thank god?
like Palin said, God will make the right choice on the 4th.
The author makes some very good points. My oldest brother is gay and he and I have had this discussion before. In my opinion the gay community is going about this the wrong way. Those that oppose gay marriage do so because it states in the bible that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman before God. So be it, if that is the case then the federal government nor state government have any right getting involved in marriage since it is an institution of the church. Use their own words against them. The government then has no right to issue marriage licenses as it would be in direct conflict with the separation of church and state. All couples then, hetero or homosexual, when then be issued a civil union by their respective states.
i disagree.
i do NOT think the church has the right to the term 'marriage'....and why should we all have to bend over backwards to accommodate the religious? it think it is symbolic and important for homosexuals to have rights to marriage just as heterosexuals. as of right NOW, heterosexuals can go to the courthouse and get a legal marriage, outside the church. no one balks at that. no one is pressing religious institutions to perform homosexual marriages, not in the least. we are looking for LEGAL rights. it may be semantics, but sometimes.....words ARE important. i do not believe we all should bend to the will of the religious, or those gender biased towards marriage. just my opinion of course....but i say keep fighting the good fight. it IS the right of all.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i think the point is what battle is most important? ... if the primary purpose is to gain the same benefits and rights that heterosexual couple receives - then they need to focus on that and not the symbolic nature of a word that the religious zealots are holding onto with dear life ... at the end of the day - whether the legal term is civil union or whatever - people will refer to a gay couple as being married ... that's the only word for it ...
choosing to fight the definition of the word "marriage" is a much harder battle to win imo ... the zealots have a lot of money to fight this battle but focusing on equal and human right issues is a much harder to defend from the zealot side ...
i agree with you wholeheartedly in that no one group should own that word however, i think first and foremost is to get the legal recognition of the union and to be afforded the same rights as every other couple ...
i understand....and agree, to a point. however, if they are going to battle for it....and even getting 'civil unions' will be a battle, why not go for the full prize? i do not want to see our citizens kowtow to religious groups, it should have ZERO bearing. speration of church and state...yada, yada, yada. hell, gay marriage is legal in MA. it CAN be done! hey, if the vast majority of gays want to support civil unions as their choice, i am all for it! however, if they want marriage, i am all for it too! however, bottomline...it just pisses me off b/c this IS a civil rights issue, plain and simple....and while we have fought well with the gender issue, the color issue...for whatever reason the sexual orientation issue seems to be the most difficult. i'm sorry, but i do not believe ANY of us should have to bend our own freedoms to cater to the religious. that is NOT what our governemnt was founded on. so yea...none too eloquently, but....FUCK THAT!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
well ... if it's the difference between winning and losing ...
but yeah - i agree 100% ... it just goes to show how much further we have to go ...
Because they have a far greater chance of winning the battle for civil unions than they do marriage. besides government really has no right to get involved in marriage.
hey, i am not asking you or anyone else to agree with me. as i said, i 100% support whatever the homosexuals want in that regard. my only 'point' is they DO have the right to want MARRIAGE, and it ulitmately is their battle to decide what they most want. i support whatever choice they make.
and HELL YES...we certainly do!
btw - i have a read alot about this topic on this board lately, lots of threads, etc...and someone said that IF homosexuals went and got married in MA and then returned to any other state...that the marriage would HAVE to be recognized b/c states must respect marriage licenses from everywhere. i honestly don't know if this is true or not...and it certainly is no 'solution'...but if it IS true, i think a massive amount of gay marriages happening in MA and then going elsewhere...would just prove how ridiculous it all is to 'ban' it. just a thought.....
i understood your pov...and i clearly expressed mine. obviously, i politely agree to disagree.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow