Same-Sex marriages banned ?

The gay marriage issue was not even on the ballot here in washington. the issues here were for extended non-Indian gambling, sales tax increases to fund transit projects, street improvement, and county seat limitations, but no gay marriage issues.

I agree with val, that gay marriage, abortion, should be kept at the state level.

Valhall,

If you want an Official Butt-Sex certificate...you can't get one in this state. And if you get one some where else, it doesn't apply here...you'll go back to unofficial butt-sex when you're in this state.

I really thought you had a lot less red in your neck, but this statement proves me wrong. Are you having BUTT SEX with someone? Does it matter what you do behind your door? How about we start making women stay home from work while there on thier period? That is about the same mentality that says you cant marry another person if you love them because of extrenuating circumstances. Its wrong. The fact is, people are people, and some of those people fall in love with people with the same parts. BIG DEAL! Are you so insecure with yourself that this really bothers you? My wife and my daughter are my life. What some one else does in thier house, or who someone else marries IS NOT MY LIFE, nor is it yours.

Also, I highly doubt that OBL is an advocate of the gay community. He would have gay people rounded up and decapitated. Which is where we will be in about four more years if conservatives get thier way. I say OBL is an activist for the conservatives and Bush himself!

CAZ,

Dont assume their motives for saying no to gay marriage....a) you dont really know each reason, and b) reason is irrelavent when the overall principal of DEMOCRACY is considered, it is reaching a majority concensus that is the agreed upon method and most fair way this culture has chosen to deal with these issues.

The big argument with the gay marriage ammendment is Man+woman=Family. That is the WHOLE argument. This is not true. Only someone who cant see past thier own life would even think such a thing. Why cant two women, or two men have a real meaningful relationship and raise a family? What is going to happen? Will society crumble? Probably not before Bush destroies it. Definatly not before the thought of segregation and discrimination tear our society apart agian.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Valhall,

I really thought you had a lot less red in your neck, but this statement proves me wrong.

Typical response - call names when somebody doesn't agree with you. "I want to do something that repulses the majority of the people in your state and not only do I want to be allowed to do it, I demand that all those repulsed people give me the state seal of approval on doing it and if you don't...I'm going to call you a name!"

WHATEVER

Why cant two women, or two men have a real meaningful relationship and raise a family?

Once again I find myself repeating - they can. They just don't get the state seal of approval in 11 states now.

We will not be agreeing - irrespective of what names you call me....and I won't be losing sleep of the fact that in a minority of states in the U.S....Fred won't get to introduce Bubba as his "Mrs."

Yep....I am so very disappointed in this country....it appears that the majority doesn't care about people being killed, about our envirnoment....they seem to care more about what people my be doing in the privacy of their own bedroom.....the terror will now begin, and there is nothing anyone can do but sit and watch it unfold...

I'm wondering how many of the Bushers are gonna be shaking their head in dismay withint a year......it feels like a day of mourning for humanity!

Valhall,

Ok, I apologioze about the red neck remark, But when you start throwing around phrases like Butt-sex this and Butt-sex that, well, I admit that redneck is the first thing that comes to mind. But I apologize for the remark.

You still have not answered my original question. Why cant two women, or two men have a real meaningful relationship and raise a family? What is going to happen? Will society crumble? How do we have the right to tell someone who they can love and marry?

Originally posted by Valhall,

If you want an Official Butt-Sex certificate...

I can't believe I read that from an educated human!? For one....do you know that many gay men do not engage in anal copulation....obviously by your very intelligent remark....you don't. How do I kkow....I know many gay people...and many of them simply don't.....you have no idea what your talking about....





[edit on 11/3/2004 by LadyV]

I have answered you at least TWO times in this thread!!!

We can't tell anybody who they can love.

Since the civil act of "marriage" is a CIVIL act, it can be regulated.

Two different things here. One is an inherent freedom to dispense your emotion in whatever direction and flavor you choose. The other is a LEGAL, CIVIL action regulated by the state. The state can choose to regulate it however the majority of that state votes to do so.

Two very separate issues. No one is trying to prevent love...in fact, like I stated WAAAY up there...nobody is trying to prevent boinking. But this is a manner in which a population of people, bordered by the envelope of their state can say "we have chosen NOT to condone this in a legal and civil manner"...and they have the right to do that!

You misunderstand my questions the. I dont want to know why in the leagle sence. I want to know why in the physical sence. Why do people think that this will be the end of the world if gay marriages occour? Its like saying you cant get married because your white, and your sig other is black. What are the thoughts of WHY this is wrong? I KNOW it is a civil order and is to be voted on, but why are the people thinking this is so terrible? Just because they dont agree with someones lifestyle?

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Just because they dont agree with someones lifestyle?

First, I don't think the majority of people think it will be the end of the world. But the answer to the above question is yes.

See, first there is acceptance. I believe people should be accepting of other people - even if their lifestyle choices are something that you cannot - for the life of you - approve. You still should accept the person as they are. Treat them respect and love.

Then there comes the point when the person who has the lifestyle choices that you could never approve gets in your face and demands you approve it. That's what this was. A statement by the people - forced by the attempts of the homosexual community to demand approval - that they will not be forced to approve something they absolutely can't personally do.

Now...the question becomes: Who has more rights here? The minority demanding the approval of the non-approving majority? Or the majority to refuse to approve?

I think that becomes really really obvious when you start thinking about it from a logically standpoint.

No one is being told they can't love, live-with, boink whatever...they just don't get the approval of the population of 11 states.

Thank you Valhall for consicely stating the reason why this act (saying marriage = man+woman only) is not itself a "bad" act because it has been done in an accepted democratic manner. This is not saying this form of governance and "social evolution" is perfect, indeed as in this case, many people see the decision as wrong.

Accepting the fact that society can determine its identity in this way means accepting the fact that the society will not choose your way sometimes.
This fact really really bothers people, and i know why.
It means they'd have to take NO for an answer and deal with it, even if continued concensus building twords a majority takes a long time.

Kid seems confused,

The big argument with the gay marriage ammendment is Man+woman=Family. That is the WHOLE argument. This is not true. Only someone who cant see past thier own life would even think such a thing.

NO ITS NOT. For some, mostly religious types, they may draw this conclusion, but it is certantly no where near my reasons for saying NO. You claim its the whole argument...ARE YOU READING AND COMPREHENDING THE OTHER REASONS BEING SHOWN RIGHT NOW? if so then there are more reasons than theological ones.

The only someones that cant see past their own lifes here is THE GAY PEOPLE/supporters! As i see it, gay couples HAVE been given recognization (institutionalized) by society as being capable of being considered a family unit, AND can thus adopt children. Personally i dont think that our society delved deep enough into legsilating this to understand any long term societal effects (+ or -). But never the less, the culture says this is acceptable. How dont YOU see this let alone acuse others of blindness?
see this thread for 10999 others
www.abovetopsecret.com...
then ask yourselves how much of these linkages get talked about. Still informed are we?

Ahh the fair Lady V chimes in,

it appears that the majority doesn't care about people being killed, about our envirnoment....they seem to care more about what people my be doing in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Please save the pity card...trying to inflate the suffering of gays to that of people murderd (or did you mean killed in war...you know you want to bash the USA), and the overall destruction of the environment is what id expect for an emotionally sympathetic tug at the heartstrings.
You get no sympathy for that argument as the level of suffering between the groups is no where near equal.

kid seeks wisdom and asks,

You still have not answered my original question. Why cant two women, or two men have a real meaningful relationship and raise a family? What is going to happen? Will society crumble? How do we have the right to tell someone who they can love and marry?

The raise a family issue i just answered for you one paragraph ago.
How can you prove love...define real and meaningful in a marriage context.

Society falling? Societies have "devolved" based upon a "washing out" of its cultural identity. Cultures have been destroyed thru dilution of cultural heritage. In this case id say, has the issue really been looked at, both legally and from a cultural standpoint before we just run off and create another protected special intrest minority group? We should not culturalize something this charged as a "feel good" measure. The road to hell my friend ....is paved with good intentions.

How do we have the right to tell someone who they can love and marry?
Most arent saying "dont love that person" we really dont care most of us....we do care when you get to the courthouse and request entitlements based upon certain criteria. Our culture has in 11 states made this determination thru accepted means. (living/participating in a democracy is VOLUNTARY) There is nothing wrong with the overall culture doing so to identify itself both to its citizens and to the world.

For anyone to look at a person that says "no to gay marriage" and then judge them a bigot, homophobe, or deranged person is WRONG...it is projecting your bias onto them before youve even asked why.
(now when jesus and the devil come up, you MUST accept that they can believe that, that they could be the majority, even tho you dont believe it you must RESPECT their right to believe such and not persecute them for it.)

And to say to us fellow citizens we cant use the tools of democracy this country in based on to fairly determine this (as best as it can be for +250 million people) is also wrong, It is an attempt to remove OUR rights so that you can get something. These are 2 big reasons im saying NO to the gay agenda.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by CazMedia]

Hhaah

American ideals.. "Freedom and choice" What about the choice to marry someone of the same sex?

These so called conservatives are nothing more than right-wing christian fanatics! They don't stand for American ideals.. they onlys stand for ideals that fit there oppressive and backwards agenda.

The same people who are against gay marriages are the same people that were for white lunchcounters and colored lunchcounters.

These paranoid conservatives are always talking about some sort of "gay agenda" just like the "black agenda" The only agenda is to promote equaliy for all! Not just for certain groups for people.
[edit on 3-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by RedOctober90

The same people who are against gay marriages are the same people that were for white lunchcounters and colored lunchcounters.

These paranoid conservatives are always talking about some sort of "gay agenda" just like the "black agenda" The only agenda is to promote equaliy for all! Not just for certain groups for people.

I would have to agree with you. It seems no more right than saying you have to marry in your own race.

You bring up an excellent point about the equality. It seems to me that through this ammendment, we have divided our culture and the gay culture has become a second-and-sub-class. The basis of this country was freedom to be who you choose to be. Worship what you want to worship, and above all, equality in ALL people.

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Article IV of the US Constitution

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

In a nutshell - if even one state allows for gay marriage all other states must recognize the legality of said gay marriage as provide by the US Constitution.

The only way those who oppose gay marriage can discriminate or deny this right to gay/lesbian couples is to adopt a constitutional amendment that specifically does just that.

Think about that for a minute. The only way to deny a right already guaranteed in the Constitution is to create an amendment that specifically discriminates against a group of people. Very sad.

Additional resources:
Full Faith and Credulous
Wikipedia - Full Faith and Credit Clause - explanation


B.

Good post,

I'd have to think the real "patriots" are the liberals..... They are truly for choice and freedom. As you can see, it's liberals that wanted equality for blacks.. women... and homosexuals. It was the right-wing conservative that wished to oppress these groups out of there ignorance and fear.

Basically any kind of racism or sexism, or homophobia.... it's all based on ignorance and fear of people you never met.

Deny ignorance!

[edit on 3-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

All I have to say to these right wing conservatives is I hope that your child does not turn out to be gay. Not for your sake but for theirs.

Let me tell you a little story. I grew up in a conservative household. I was not allowed to even watch "Three's Company" because my mother thought it would turn me gay. One evening we were watching a tv movie about a gay man that contracted AIDS (right when AIDS first came out). I can still remember my mother turning to my father and saying she didn't know what she would do if one of her children was gay. Well, guess what....one was and still is. It took me until I was 30 years old and the support of my sister and brother-in-law to actually come out to my parents. I was one of the lucky ones....my parents accepted it and moved on (I guess my mother did find out what she would do if one of her children was gay). Actually, it's kinda funny now because I think my mom started listing questions she had about being gay and everytime I talked to her she would just start asking me questions....very cool to actually have a grown up conversation with your accepting parents about being gay. So, in conclusion....don't judge another until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

As for this whole debacle.....yes, these states have the right to choose their bounderies.....doesn't mean we are not going to still fight for our rights.

thought i share my opinion on Same-Sex Marriage,

I don't support marriage between the same sex, I believe that right should only exist for a man and woman.


However i do believe that same sex couples deserve the right as human beings to take their love to a higher level. I believe there should be a state union (only for same sex couples). Thus entitled them to the benefits associated with mixed gender marriage.

This unrelenting demand that you get some one else's approval must stem from some type of inferiority complex or something.

It's a shame, because I can guarantee you one universal truth - you can't force some one to approve of something they don't.

You might get a lie as a response...and that's probably what you want, right?

Number one skill in the PC world we live in apparently is mastering the ability to fake sincerity.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
thought i share my opinion on Same-Sex Marriage,

I don't support marriage between the same sex, I believe that right should only exist for a man and woman.


Why? Explain your reasoning for this? Is it a religious reasoning? Marriage doesen't always have to pertain to a specific religious belief system.

However i do believe that same sex couples deserve the right as human beings to take their love to a higher level. I believe there should be a state union (only for same sex couples). Thus entitled them to the benefits associated with mixed gender marriage.

They deserve marriage rights.. no reason to discriminate agains them.

Is that directed at me Valhal? If so, I never said I wanted your approval...nor do I need it. I couldn't give two #s about what you approve of or disapprove of.

Now as far as making me a second class citizen in your state, that is when your approval or disapproval has gone too far. I'm not saying you don't have that right, but I also have the same right to try and change this law.

What's next? People who have a mental illness banned from marriage? Mentally retarded? Deaf, blind, sterile? Where are the bannings going to end?

Originally posted by RedOctober90
They deserve marriage rights.. no reason to discriminate agains them.

I'm not - they would get exactly the same rights given by marriage but their union but be named 'State Union' thus keeping the christian extremeists happy because homosexuls won't be able to marry but homosexuals will have a equal union.