Bush Calls for Gay Marriage Ban

Remove all ads!

@ Aldeth: After your reply I re-read my post and quickly saw how I lacked proper expression of the meaning of parts of my post .

So if polygamist are consenting adults thier marriage should be recognized? Who is to say they are not born to be polygamist? My point is, if it is considered a denial of human rights to not legally recognize gay marriage, how can you deny other groups rights based on thier sexual preference?

I do not mean that they are sexual people at this age, although thier have been studies that claim that children as young as 3-5 years old are sexually aware and responsive, I am saying that they identify themselves as being a member of the opposite sex more than with thier own sex and when they become sexually active and aware pubescents they are naturally going to be attracted to thier own sex because they see them as the opposite sex.

I concede that you coul be right and I could be wrong but I think either opinion would be hard to prove.

@ Dendri:

I only used the effeminate model as it is easy to relate to and understand. I think that if you spend enough time around masculin gays you may find that many of them, while not physically effeminate, are emotionally effeminate and that in thier childhood and adolescent years they lived alife in which they learned to hide this to avoid being stigmatized. I also believe that environment and childhood conditions can lead to people making an unconscious choice to be gay.

I do not equate the Homosexuality issue with civil rights. I do not see how being gay can be construed as a human right. you are free to choose your life style, just don't shove it in my face and say love it, accept it, worship it. I don't do that to gays and that is all I ask in return.

 

I only have one suggestion: If homosexuals in the US have a problem marrying because of a retarded american President/religious front figur/whatever, why don´t you come to Denmark and get married here? A marriage license here in Denmark is just as valid in any other part of the world, even though the names of two men/women is written on it.
Seriously, get married here. Then you don´t have to worry about the protests from some Bible-humpin´ morons. And I mean that in a as insulting way as possible. People with a pathetic "holier-than-thou"- attitude who interfere in the personal life of others, should simply be taught a harsh lesson. Castration comes to mind. That´s my 2 cents.

 

I agree, all homosexuals in the USA should go to some Godless arsewart of a country like Denmark and stay there!

 

Why should people have to run away to another country just to get married? That's the repulsive thing here, that human beings are having their rights removed by the ol' right wing bible bashers who find them distasteful.

The system over here works best, I think. Marriage is a religious term, therefore it depends upon the Church whether homosexuals can marry or not. Civil Partnerships, which amount to the saem thing, are a Civil matter, therefore homosexuals can have a Civil Partnership instead of a marriage.

WHile I'm in favour of homosexual partnerships, I can't condone marriage as my Church won't perform the marriages.

EDIT: As I wrote this, the ad beneath was for 'Gay Wedding RIngs'. Classic

 

That's a bit close to the bone...

 

Did you mean humpin' or thumpin'?


If the church doesn't want to marry someone, fine, as long as Civil Unions (or Partnerships) give the exact same legal rights. Don't call it a marriage if you don't want, just make it the same thing as one!

 

@ Barmy Army: Yea, I know it was harsh, my remark was ment to show him how he sounded to me. When you see a guy runnin' down your Country, Religion, and You with a post like

I find it hard to just let such bigot have a free ride and I felt uncomfortable in telling him to stick his up his Castrated slot. But I hate people who accuse you of being intolerant, prejudice, hatful and making themselves out to be "holier-than-thou", And they don't take two seconds to read the post of others. they just know that Americans are against gay marriage and that makes us all "retarded american... Bible-humpin´ morons". I don't know what he is humpin´ but he damn sure is a moron.

 

What about other religions that do condone and perform marriages between smae-sex couples? what makes your religgion in any way more important when it comes to secular law than thieirs? Should we ban pork next?

M7y personal favorite solution to this damned dilemma is rather siple. Edradicate the concept of marriage from secular law: Just call every uniuon between two conc3enting adults a civil partnetrship, and be done with it. If people wnat to define marriage by the terms of their religion, then so be it - but laws should not bend to the wisheres of any religion.

And yes, i am aware of the fact that it would most likely create a whole new can of worms in the form of social issues; but I will not get intto those here.

 

Ugh. Were forum rules given a leave of absence? Or is there a special dispensation?

 

That actually seems spectacularly sensible.

 

This is probably the most sensible, fair and peaceful solution to this subject I have ever heard. Bravo Arabwel! I think that in America the solution to this problem will be similar to this idea. I beleive that gays will be afforded all the rights of marriage thuogh civil uniuons and if they want the sanctity of marriage added to this union they can always find an open minded religion to recognize them as a married couple. In time I myself would like to see laws changed to reflect every uniuon between two concsenting adults as a civil, secular and leagal partnetrship and let marriage be a Religious affair. this would end exchanges suchas the ones between Yulaw9640 and myself,which are not very productive and are demeaning to all of us.

 

And the problem that results in this never getting considered is one that is prevalent in far too many debates: extremism. The most vocal are those with such strongly held opinions that nothing had better get in their way, and the two opposing sides fire volley after volley of hatred at one another while we moderates sit quietly on the sidelines with the perfect compromise. Why do we sit quietly? Because we've already tried speaking up, and been shouted down by the extremists not wanting to make any concessions, so the debate rages unabated.

It's sickening, really, and likely nothing will change until those who hold extreme values grow old and die, hopefully replaced by offspring that can do more than spout rhetoric. Problems like these are generational, I believe, so I don't see it being resolved any time soon.

For definition purposes, so far noone since Ara's post is an extremist because(/if) they actually took the time to think about what she said, rather than dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't meet with their extreme views.

 

Exactly. The non-extreme majority are nowhere near as vocal or scary.

 

It isn't extreme to be against gay marriage. Polls seem to indicate that more than half of Americans are against it. Just because it isn't extreme doesn't make it right, though.

 

And yet, I read somewhere that 58% of all Americans is against Legalized Homosexual Partnerships. Not that vast majority.

 

Yeah, but how extremely against it are they? I still think Arabwel's suggestion is eminently sensible and should, in theory, keep everyone happy - but probably wouldn't, for the reasons outlined by Felinoid.

 

That's true, but also far too simple a statement. What is extreme is fighting against giving them any rights at all, not even a civil union. On the other extreme, people fight to make churches marry them. It's stupidity personified.

Not against partnerships (which would be against people being gay at all), but against gay marriage. And such polls are typically a bit off because of a lack of definition. Is being against gay marriage being against them forcing churches to marry them or against them having civil unions? How many rights afforded to married hetero couples do they think united gay couples should have? These polls mostly have yes & no, when there really ought to be about a million options in between.

 

Again, Felinoid's response echoes my thoughts on the matter. Tossing around random percentages doesn't really deal with the point he originally made.

 

The only place I've ever seen this has been apocryphal statements in the rhetoric of those seeking to disallow gay marriage. I've never seen a group lobby to have the government force a church to marry homosexuals. Now I have seen members of specific churches lobby their churches to allow gay marriage with varying degrees of success (a few denominations now perform gay marriages), but that is a wholly different matter.