12 reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

[cyberia]

Baal Zebul: I'm just kind of bothered by something in your post. And its not your stance on gays.

Its your stance on people "fitting in". Why do you beleive that everybody has to fit in, or rather that people do "fit in". Its this attitude that i find erronious. Especially in todays diverse society how exactly does one go about fitting in. And to what group does one attempt to make this assimilation? Should I try to fit into the preppy super PTA moms with pastel sweaters and mini vans? And if so what about the unhappy marriages that sometimes occur, the repetitive days, do I try to fit with them? Or should I try and fit in with the 'preppy cool kids' at my highschool? Wear all the right make up, all the right clothes, listen to only peppy pop music and join the cheer squad? And if so should I also 'fit in' with peer pressure and have sex when i'm 16 cus everyone else is doing it? Should I stop eating so i fit into the right skinny weight category? Maybe start snorting ridilin to keep my perfect grades up under pressure? Should I stop showing symbols of respect and devotion to my religion like the scarves so I fit the afforementioned religion? And should I throw away what i feel is right for me in my sexuality and life style, and the chance for a happy relationship to be with some fucking guy i don't find attractive, to have the perfect happy family with 2.5 kids and a dog.

Who am I supposed to fucking fit in with and WHY?

 

[Tiassa]

Amendment fizzles

Source: Guardian Unlimited
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4310822,00.html
Title: "Gay Marriage Roll Call Vote"
Date: July 14, 2004

Even I find a moment to grin that I'm calling up a British source for the story, but it's coincidental. It was the first link I found with the roll call, and it's an AP wire story to boot.

The 50-48 roll call by which the Senate blocked a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Supporters of the amendment fell 12 votes short of the 60 they needed to advance the bill . . . .

. . . . Voting ``yes'' were 3 Democrats and 45 Republicans.

Voting ``no'' were 43 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Independent.

Source: Guardian Unlimited

Comment:

The vote even fell short of a simple majority; at least one major news outlet calls the failing bill a stinging defeat, and I think the embarrassment stems from internecine bickering among GOP senators.

To the other, though, American pundits and analysts see the issue as one of sharp focus for the election despite the defeat. I'm wondering if this isn't so much an embarrassing defeat for the GOP--the "Republican base vote" is pretty strong within itself, and will be proud of its senators for making a stand at least. In the end, what we have then is a dead issue before Congress that will be a hot potato in the presidential election.

Of course, the War on Terror also challenges Equal Protection, but there's a matter of priorities that nags at me. Economy, terror, wars and rumors of wars, and the unspeakable five-letter word that crouches in the shadows as the Selective Service surveys its own fitness to function--and we're arguing about buggery, carpet-munching, and the legal right of two people to love one another?

I'd say that plays well into the GOP's hands. Better this issue than a real one.

While it is a good thing to have this affirmation that Americans haven't gone completely lunatic yet, we must remember that any sense of "victory" in the failure of the Homophobes Amendment is tempered by the fact that Americans could--and well should--expect this outcome. We cannot let the sense of victory cloud the sleight of notions at play. The GOP is trying to play cups and balls at least, and they're not doing a very good job.

Looking over to the New York Times for a final note, I find the quote of the week on this issue, from none other than Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA):

"You can say I'm a hater. But I would argue I'm a lover. I'm a lover of traditional families and children who deserve the right to have a mother and father."

Source: Oakland Tribune

____________________

Reference Links:

• Associated Press. "Gay Marriage Roll Call." Guardian Unlimited, July 14, 2004. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4310822,00.html
• Hulse, Carl. "Opponents of Gay-Marriage Ban Expect Senate Win." New York Times, July 14, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/national/14gays.html

Note: New York Times links require free registration. See link below for other source.

See Also:

• Hulse, Carl. "GOP lacks Senate votes to pass gay-marriage ban." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 14, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/182023_senate14.html

 

[Mystech]

I don't get it, it's already friggin' illegal everywhere anyhow, and now they wanna' make it even more illegal? We've got state laws everywhere 'cept Massachusetts, the Federal "Defense" of Marriage Act, but for some that's just not enough? We've gotta' throw in a fucking constitutional amendment for no good reason? It wasn't voted down on Wednesday by the way, it was some form of "Procedural vote" whatever the hell that means, but as I understand it they were not actually voting on the proposed amendment, and Frist vows that this isn't over yet.

 

[Tiassa]

They didn't have enough votes to force a vote on the Amendment. That's why analysts consider the amendment dead as a Congressional issue this year, and why it's apparently that much more an embarrassment for the GOP. That the Amendment couldn't muster enough support to be worth voting on is significant.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

deleted

 

[Mystech]

Well, I don't know so much about the various metits of the 12 reasons gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry specifically per say, but having read them I can certainly think of at least one perfectly valid reason why heterosexual people, on occasion's such as this, should most certainly not be allowed to conceive at all...

If that was an attack against me I'd ask you to please read a little bit more of the thread. Please don't drag up ancient threads just to make the same stupid comment that about a dozen other people have already made in the same thread simply because they didn't give it a good enough read through.

 

[Hapsburg]

mystech, you do realize that it's a natural chemical imbalance that happen before birth? That is how someone is homosexual.
That said, I don't understand why the fuck it matters. They want to get married. Whoopry frick-fuckin doo.
Gays have as much a right to be as happy or unhappy as straight people.

p.s) I agree with Mr.Anonymous.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

deleted

 

[Beryl]

Yeah, I read that list on gatorgsa.org. Hilarious! I also liked the "I think I might be straight..." brochure.

 

[Mystech]

... em, Mystech old boy. The only possible way the response I actually wrote could possibly be directed against you personally is if you are actually the author of the specific 12 reasons why, etc...

Okay then, why would you be disparaging the author of those 12 reasons, then? My question holds as strongly, I think. They are a clear work of satire, not a serious condemnation of same-sex marriage.

 

[Mystech]

mystech, you do realize that it's a natural chemical imbalance that happen before birth? That is how someone is homosexual.

Really, is that it? You might want to call the authorities of the scientific and medical communities and alert them that you've discovered the exact thing that makes a person homosexual.

This thread was cute in it's day I think, but it's been nothing but "attack of the reading-comprehension issues" for quite some time now. Would it be rude of me to ask Tiassa to lock it?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

deleted

 

[Mystech]

Is replying to one of your posts always this much fun?

Take a look at Hapsburg's reply, and note that you don't particularly distinguish your own tone from his. Posts like that account for about half of this thread.

 

[yank]

come on its their own life... who are you to decide whether they can marry or not?
their tendencies go against nature... so what's wrong???
aren't mentally or physically chanllenged individuals permitted to marry???
your talkin shit!

 

[Jeremirroer]

because marriage is all about a man and a woman coming together. You get married under the eyes of your God.

why would you need to get married if you were gay? clearly you're godless.

 

[Mystech]

because marriage is all about a man and a woman coming together. You get married under the eyes of your God.

why would you need to get married if you were gay? clearly you're godless.

Firstly the national debate going on is about whether or not our secular government supposedly for the people should recognize the monogamous unions which homosexuals already engage in, marriage as such.

Second, the idea that all homosexuals are "godless" is extremely offensive to me, and really shows how narrow minded and basically ignorant about people in general you really are. Personally I'm an Atheist, so ok I'm probably not the best person to be talking about this issue, but there's no shortage of homosexuals of faith, be sure of that. I myself happen to be dating one such fag. Though many right-wing Christians tend to make a big flaming deal out of homosexuality, other more moderate and liberal Christians don't, and homosexual Christians themselves realize that we are all sinners and Jesus loves us anyway (that's what I hear tell, anyhow). It's perfectly within the realm of standard acceptability for a homosexual to be a Christian. Of course, then there's all them other nutty religions we have in this big ol' country of ours, but they aren't really worth mentioning while we're busy gettin' our hate on, m i rght?

Please take some time to educate yourself on the relevant peripheral factors as well as the basic fundamentals of the issue itself before you decide to open your stupid mouth. I'm sorry if that's a bit harsh, but you're echoing quite a lot of disinterested ignorant unwashed morons, and unfortunately it's seeming more and more that those are the sorts who are calling all the shots on this issue. It gets the blood all angried up, you know?

 

[yank]

because marriage is all about a man and a woman coming together. You get married under the eyes of your God.

why would you need to get married if you were gay? clearly you're godless.

your talkin toilet now!

 

[Bells]

because marriage is all about a man and a woman coming together. You get married under the eyes of your God.

Really? Interesting... especially since the last time I went to a wedding, I didn't see a pair of giant eye balls above the altar as the couple exchanged their vows.

Marriage should be about two people who love each other and wanting to spend the rest of their lives under a legally binding contract. Their sex should not come into it. Why does it bother you so much if homosexuals decide to marry? How does it concern you exactly? How would it even affect you?

why would you need to get married if you were gay? clearly you're godless.

The same could be said of straight people? Why do we feel the need to marry? I mean I'm straight and I look at my darling partner/other half/boyfriend/defacto and think why should we get married when we're happy as we are? But then I guess as someone who's not homosexual, I have that choice. A homosexual couple does not have that choice as to whether they should get married or not.

Western society deems all to be free and equal, but just don't be different and expect to have freedom or god forbid, expect equality.

 

[Yorda]

because marriage is all about a man and a woman coming together. You get married under the eyes of your God.

why would you need to get married if you were gay? clearly you're godless.

you don't have to believe in god to get married. people get married because they want to belong to each other "forever"... they do it because want to unite. like two magnets. this may be just a symbolic thing, a hope, but everyone should have the right to do so.

 

[Baron Max]

...but you're echoing quite a lot of disinterested ignorant unwashed morons, and unfortunately it's seeming more and more that those are the sorts who are calling all the shots on this issue. It gets the blood all angried up, you know?

But aren't all of us "...disinterested ignorant unwashed morons..." part of "We, The People"? Just because we don't bathe and we're ignorant and uninterested, aren't we permitted to vote for our representatives?

We have, I believe, a representative, republic government in this country and if it DOES NOT represent "The People", then who the fuck DOES it represent? If the great, ignorant, unbathed voters elect governmental representatives to REPRESENT them, then shouldn't those representatives actually represent the voters?

Oh, don't know if you know it, but Texas changed it's laws .....ain't gonna' be no stinkin' homo marriages in Texas no more!! Power to the people! ;=)

By the way, you should be careful with your blood pressure ....it ain't good to let it get too high. ...or is that another homo-thing?

Baron Max