<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 25 2004, 09:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 25 2004, 09:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is a very good point Rat.
Also, why do people buy that rhetoric crap of being a homosexual equates to a "sexual preference"?
Guys, being a homosexual is like being born without an arm or with an extra head, it's a birth defect. In this sense, homosexuality is just abnormal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Homosexuality is a birth defect ? You just say it like it is don't you ?
Homosexuality is no more a birth defect than eye colour is.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
I'd like to steer this back to a legal discussion. Accepting Beast's definition of why Beastiality (no pun intended) is illegal, what about Polygamy? A Mormon sect has tried to use religious beliefs to legalize polygamy. The courts have backed legislation that criminalizes it. What if the judges change their minds?
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Feb 25 2004, 06:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 25 2004, 06:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd like to steer this back to a legal discussion. Accepting Beast's definition of why Beastiality (no pun intended) is illegal, what about Polygamy? A Mormon sect has tried to use religious beliefs to legalize polygamy. The courts have backed legislation that criminalizes it. What if the judges change their minds? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> by no means should any of this be at the whim of the judges, or anyone else. What should be happenening instead of just blantant disregard for the method that these things should be conducted in is that these laws should be challenged as unconstitutional. I was not justifiying the judges that sparked this trend, nor the actions of the San Fransico mayor in my original post. While I may agree that homosexuals should be able to be married, I dont think that a flippant disregard for the law is ok. As for the matter of protecting the sanctity of marriage.......... well, sorry to break the news to ya, but it was ruined in this country along time ago the US is peppered with drive-thru chapels, 'Ordained Ministers' in the 'Church of Light' which you pay $10 dollars for over the internet, an over 50% divorce rate and a large amount of the participants of marriage not even being religious.
<!--QuoteBegin-AsterOids+Feb 24 2004, 07:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 24 2004, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. " <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This whole thread makes me wanna cry. It should have stopped with this quote, which people need to pay more attention to. OK, you're not g4y, you don't understand how a g4y person thinks or feels, and more importantly, you don't care, you don't think they deserve consideration. Why can't you just ignore them, then, instead of trying to restrict their civil liberties?
G4ys getting married hurts no one. Before anyone says it, no, it does not hurt children they may want to adopt. I have been raised by a single parent, of 1 gender, and I am not derranged because I haven't had 2 sexes of influence on my life. Children of g4y parents are no more likely to be g4y than children of str8 couples, and even if they were, so? That would only be a bad thing if homosexuality were a bad thing, which it's not. Homosexuality hurts no one; bigotry is the bad thing.
Also before anyone says it, g4y marriage does not damage the 'sanctity of marriage.' Las Vegas does, divorce does, the 99.9% of marriages that are because of something other than love do. 2 same-gendered people marrying for love brings LIFE to a near-dead institution.
Frankly, anyone who thinks homosexuality is a genetic defect -- I think they're the ones with genetic defects, if they can't accept (let alone embrace), or even resist demeaning someone different from them.
to get back to the quote... ppl who want to restrict freedoms like this... well, I don't know what you are -- tall, short, 'foreign,' whatever -- what happens when they decide it's time to restrict YOUR freedoms? "They never will, because I'm normal?" Ha, gimme a break.
The thing that scares me most about that article is that John Kerry, who will probably be the democratic candidate, also disapproves of g4y marriage. In other words, no matter what happens, g4ys are going to have a hard time in US society for at least 4 more years... (as if it'll ever stop)
edit: meant to include <a href='http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html' target='_blank'>this flash</a>, which is appropriate, hehe.
<!--QuoteBegin-_Creep_+Feb 25 2004, 09:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (_Creep_ @ Feb 25 2004, 09:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 25 2004, 09:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 25 2004, 09:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is a very good point Rat.
Also, why do people buy that rhetoric crap of being a homosexual equates to a "sexual preference"?
Guys, being a homosexual is like being born without an arm or with an extra head, it's a birth defect. In this sense, homosexuality is just abnormal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Homosexuality is a birth defect ? You just say it like it is don't you ?
Homosexuality is no more a birth defect than eye colour is.
Are homosexuals abnormal too ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Having a birth defect is abnormal. So yes g4ys are abnormal. I don't see the big deal here.
It seems to me the only ones here who are making a big deal of the entire "abnormal" crap the ones pushing g4y agenda.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now homosexuality is a defect? Anyone else want to offend them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one offended them. When wasn't homosexuality a defect?
Guys, I have something to admit to you all, I was born with a birth defect. I have a lazy eye. Please don't make fun of me or else I'm going to cry.
Actually I couldn't care less. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And I don't see why anyone else should be offended at a <b>biological defination</b> of a particular trait you happen to have.
To quote Ryo about the "basic nature" of human beings...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Human beings, like every other organism on the planet, are out for themselves. We are selfish; almost everything we do is for personal benefit in one way, shape or form. Your mother didn't have a child because it's the selfless thing to do; she was driven by a genetic urge to procreate, as is every organism. It's in an individuals' personal interest to pass on their genes; nothing selfless about that. Indeed it's quite selfish. She cared for you for the same reason: wishing to see her genes passed on, because obviously her child has to procreate as well in order for this to fully occur.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, we, as individuals, wish to exploit others. A husband exploits his wife as a vessal for his child.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A mother pulls her children from a burning car because she wants to save her genetic carriers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using this definition... How is being a homosexual NOT contradictory to what the basic human drive is? Homosexuals can not have kids together... It's biologically impossible, as you should already know.
Note: Personally, I don't agree with Ryo's stance on life, i'm just posting his views for you guys...or something?
<!--QuoteBegin-Crisqo+Feb 25 2004, 11:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Feb 25 2004, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To quote Ryo about the "basic nature" of human beings...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Human beings, like every other organism on the planet, are out for themselves. We are selfish; almost everything we do is for personal benefit in one way, shape or form. Your mother didn't have a child because it's the selfless thing to do; she was driven by a genetic urge to procreate, as is every organism. It's in an individuals' personal interest to pass on their genes; nothing selfless about that. Indeed it's quite selfish. She cared for you for the same reason: wishing to see her genes passed on, because obviously her child has to procreate as well in order for this to fully occur.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, we, as individuals, wish to exploit others. A husband exploits his wife as a vessal for his child.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A mother pulls her children from a burning car because she wants to save her genetic carriers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using this definition... How is being a homosexual NOT contradictory to what the basic human drive is? Homosexuals can not have kids together... It's biologically impossible, as you should already know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> that would only matter if that were right, and well......... that whole definition is just sad. I dont believe it, nor do I feel it is scientifically correct. I pity someone who isnt even remotely compasionate about others, and thinks all emotion is selfishly driven.
<!--QuoteBegin-[BFG]-|NiKoN|-+Feb 25 2004, 11:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([BFG]-|NiKoN|- @ Feb 25 2004, 11:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Feb 25 2004, 06:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 25 2004, 06:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd like to steer this back to a legal discussion. Accepting Beast's definition of why Beastiality (no pun intended) is illegal, what about Polygamy? A Mormon sect has tried to use religious beliefs to legalize polygamy. The courts have backed legislation that criminalizes it. What if the judges change their minds? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> by no means should any of this be at the whim of the judges, or anyone else. What should be happenening instead of just blantant disregard for the method that these things should be conducted in is that these laws should be challenged as unconstitutional. I was not justifiying the judges that sparked this trend, nor the actions of the San Fransico mayor in my original post. While I may agree that homosexuals should be able to be married, I dont think that a flippant disregard for the law is ok. As for the matter of protecting the sanctity of marriage.......... well, sorry to break the news to ya, but it was ruined in this country along time ago the US is peppered with drive-thru chapels, 'Ordained Ministers' in the 'Church of Light' which you pay $10 dollars for over the internet, an over 50% divorce rate and a large amount of the participants of marriage not even being religious. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, there are plent of reasons why a legal system is opposed to polygamy. Seeing as inheritance issues are a major part of homosexual marriage debates, why not examine the problem with polygamy? In a homosexual liason, there's generally two people, and one may not (currently) be legally entitled to their life partner's effects after death without <i>extensive</i> legal documentation to attest to their situation. It is one of the hot issues surrounding the whole thing. When it comes to <i>polygamy</i> however, without a will that expressly leaves X to wife #1 and Y to wife #2, how could the state equally distribute the estate of a deceased husband in an unbiased fashion? Two may seem simple, but if the man leaves five wives behind, how could you do it equally? Who would be the legal heir to the man? The first born child of the first wife? The first born child period? The latent issues with heirs and inheritance are enough of an issue without delving into the ability of a man to care equally and unbiasly for more than one wife. Hell, how would you file taxes? Would you get increased tax benefits from filing with more than one wife? Would that be constitutionally fair to those who do not practice polygamy, or are religiously denied the right to polygamy? Would you see more single-parent households where a man's wives raised his children without him being directly involved? What would the long term social/psychological aspects be of a child raised in a multi-mothered home?
There are an insane amount of questions that could be posed on this issue, and there are plenty of reasons why it should not be legal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 25 2004, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 25 2004, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-_Creep_+Feb 25 2004, 09:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (_Creep_ @ Feb 25 2004, 09:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 25 2004, 09:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 25 2004, 09:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is a very good point Rat.
Also, why do people buy that rhetoric crap of being a homosexual equates to a "sexual preference"?
Guys, being a homosexual is like being born without an arm or with an extra head, it's a birth defect. In this sense, homosexuality is just abnormal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Homosexuality is a birth defect ? You just say it like it is don't you ?
Homosexuality is no more a birth defect than eye colour is.
Are homosexuals abnormal too ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Having a birth defect is abnormal. So yes g4ys are abnormal. I don't see the big deal here.
It seems to me the only ones here who are making a big deal of the entire "abnormal" crap the ones pushing g4y agenda.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now homosexuality is a defect? Anyone else want to offend them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one offended them. When wasn't homosexuality a defect?
Guys, I have something to admit to you all, I was born with a birth defect. I have a lazy eye. Please don't make fun of me or else I'm going to cry.
Actually I couldn't care less. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And I don't see why anyone else should be offended at a <b>biological defination</b> of a particular trait you happen to have. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> good god. If someone with a lazy eye was seen in Nazi Germany, they were carted off with the G4ys, the Jews, and everyone else 'imperfect' -- and knowing that, you still support distinctions like this?
Defect:
1 a : an imperfection that impairs worth or utility : SHORTCOMING <the grave defects in our foreign policy> b : an imperfection (as a vacancy or a foreign atom) in a crystal lattice 2 [Latin defectus] : a lack of something necessary for completeness, adequacy, or perfection : DEFICIENCY <a hearing defect>
saying homosexuality is a defect implies a lot of things. it implies homosexuality is genetic, which IMO it probably is, but isn't necessarily... and it implies that one or more of the following is true: g4ys are worth less, are less useful, are incomplete, inadequate, or imperfect. Quite frankly, only God can say who's perfect.
Not that I'm religious or anything, but threads like these make me wish God would wipe us all off the face of the earth and start over, because a species that can always find something to not accept in each other is a species I wish didn't exist.
Homosexuality is more mental than physical. Yet it affects the body physical such as the guy sees another guy, and he is attracted. this is caused by chemicals. at one point of his life. somehow this person brain went from: <span style='color:green'>woman = mate for reproduction </span> to <span style='color:red'>man = mate for reproduction</span>
The body is controlled by the brain. We feel the chemicals and react off the body. If we feel horny, we will eather follow it. Or make the consoice choice not to follow it.
When you are a baby growing the womb. your brain is growing. What it basicly does it just shoot out as many connections and nerons and such all over the place. basicly making you have everyskill you just about possess. When your a baby you start off with alot of useless connection, Kinda like a shrub that just went everywhere. As you grow up. the brain begins to trim the uneeded connections.. how you might ask? by the usage. basicly if you dont use your brain, you lose it. or if you wish. Lose the connections. Connections can be remade. but they take a hell of alot longer to remake.
Now how does this relate to homosexuals? basicly when you are born. you have the strong inferstructer that you should mate with someone of the oposite sex. But the connections are there for homosexual as well. basicly you are born bysexual. able to go eather way. but with the stronger influence because of the surroundings and sercumstances of how you where consieved.
Now what does that entale exactly? it means that in a society that has a more open view about homosexuality will likely have more homosexuals. because its allowing the brain to devolope that way.
This is why alot of the strait community doesn't want homosexual marrage. They may see this. PLus deep inside they know that it will damage the population of the human race. So is it a genetic disablity? Very likely not. What i belive, and from what I have said above. Its mostly because of how the brain grows. Which is caused by the enviorment. Just like our enviorment and our choices has led us here to this momment.
Right now you may notice alot more bysexual women, than men. THat is because it is accepted more so by sciocoty. Thus the women allows thier thoughts....to go that way. inturn the brain starts making connections to to have both active for the chemicals in the body.
So what have you learned now? <span style='color:yellow'>A: Homosexuality</span> is controlled by <span style='color:blue'>B: chemicals/horomons</span> <span style='color:blue'>B: Horomons/chemicals</span> are controlled by <span style='color:orange'>C: the brain</span> <span style='color:orange'>C: The brain </span>is controlled by <span style='color:red'>D: socioty/eviorment (soemtimes a few concouse choices )</span> Thus if <span style='color:yellow'>A</span>=<span style='color:green'>B</span> <span style='color:green'>B</span>=<span style='color:orange'>C C</span>=<span style='color:red'>D</span> then <span style='color:yellow'>A</span>=<span style='color:red'>D</span>basic math; Thus in conclusion <span style='color:yellow'>A: Homosexuality </span>is breed, and controlled by <span style='color:red'>D: socioty (& soemtimes a few concouse choices )</span>
In turn you could say that Bush himself is Impossing his views upon the public. But for what resion? Is he trying to answer teh general audiance of the public view? maybe Is it based of relegion. Very Possable
Basicly bush in trying to control how socioty and its people grow up and evolve to. Is he smart enough to realize this. <span style='color:green'>PROBRABLY NOT</span>. but maybe the relegions see this. THe more people you have. the more power you have
Now from this you might think I am against homosexuality. Nonsence. I dont mind em as long as they dont hit on me. The only resion why I support homosexuality/marrage. is cause I dont mind if the population of the planet is reduced. TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE with the dwindling resorces. I could care less if half of the populace goes homo. that mean one generation is basicly lost. and a few others.
To also speculate. maybe nature brought this in the human race to get rid of people since deseese isn't working
(on a side note, research has been done that the brain can also change genes. but I dont have a web sight. I maybe have a future edit that does)
ok first off let me say bush is ****.. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
my reasons of thinking why he might of done this are
1. he doesn't like homosexuals. 2. the rate of homosexuality marriages are increasing. 3. there might of been some "content" which might of not been legal, like as an example, going against the church, sinagod, mosque, or whatever people pray in, and the leaders of the buildings might have said that the religion says blah blah blah you cant marry same sex, and that might of had bush say, hmm you are right, and it goes against the constitution, but i dunno. thats just me ^_^ <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(sorry for any mispelled building names where people pray in)
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
One last chance to get back on topic, or I close this.
This topic is about Bush advocating an amendment to the Constitution. Some things you might discuss:
1) Is this an election year stunt? Is it going to help or hurt him? 2) Think it'll work? 3) Do we need this amendment? 4) Is this something that should be mandated on the federal level, or would it be better left to the states? 5) Is that his *real* hair?
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Feb 25 2004, 02:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Feb 25 2004, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One last chance to get back on topic, or I close this.
This topic is about Bush advocating an amendment to the Constitution. Some things you might discuss:
1) Is this an election year stunt? Is it going to help or hurt him? 2) Think it'll work? 3) Do we need this amendment? 4) Is this something that should be mandated on the federal level, or would it be better left to the states? 5) Is that his *real* hair? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> please guys, stay on topic. Coil is right, and I dont want to see this thread closed.
OT: oh yeah, coil, as far as Bush's hair goes, No, its not real, but he doesnt know, for the sake of 'Plausable Deniability' <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Fine. First of all, this is obviously an election stunt to help him try to win the election. I hope it doesn't succeed, and the same goes for the ammendment. We obviously don't need it, since it raises the "separate but equal" ideas.
Marriage should be defined as something between a man and a woman simply to make sure that Marriage can't extend to other things, such as:
- Beasality (... dieseases, just... wrong) - Pligamy (too many legal issues, imagine a divorce) - Incest (Not only will any offspring be completely messed up, children shouldn't be married at young ages anyways)
I think "Civil Unions" is a great idea.
But Marrage needs to be defined as something between a man and a women to prevent any sort of the above from gaining a hold.
If, for some weird reason our society grows so liberal that we want Beastality, Pligamy, or Incest, we can make up some new laws and a new word to define marrige for any of the above.
So yes, I support marrige being defined as between a man and a women just to sort out the word game, like I originally posted at the start of this thread. It HAS to be done, it will save us all a lot of headaches in the future.
Never underestimate the power of a word and unclear definitions, take your examples from 1984.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 25 2004, 03:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 25 2004, 03:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marriage should be defined as something between a man and a woman simply to make sure that Marriage can't extend to other things, such as:
- Beasality (... dieseases, just... wrong) - Pligamy (too many legal issues, imagine a divorce) - Incest (Not only will any offspring be completely messed up, children shouldn't be married at young ages anyways)
I think "Civil Unions" is a great idea.
But Marrage needs to be defined as something between a man and a women to prevent any sort of the above from gaining a hold.
If, for some weird reason our society grows so liberal that we want Beastality, Pligamy, or Incest, we can make up some new laws and a new word to define marrige for any of the above.
So yes, I support marrige being defined as between a man and a women just to sort out the word game, like I originally posted at the start of this thread. It HAS to be done, it will save us all a lot of headaches in the future.
Never underestimate the power of a word and unclear definitions, take your examples from 1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ok, beastiality: how is homosexual marriage even related to beastiality??? how is human marriage of any kind a gateway to the marriage of a human and an animal, ever more so how does defining marriage as 'a union between a man and a woman' prevent this anymore than a definition that would include same sex?
Poligamy: again, in its current definition and the definition in question do nothing to effect the current state of this.
inscest: same thing as before, heck, homosexual inscest has less impact than heterosexual inscest does.
I think this is partly a ploy by Bush to bring focus off of the craphole the economic situation is: say something outrageous, everyone forgets everything else and "OMGs" that topic.
I wouldn't say that Bush's speech was any more politically motivated than, say, the mayor of San Francisco's actions (which were illegal by the way...I hope he gets recalled for doing it)
*edit* addendum: In regards to whether we need this amendment: Marriage is legally considered on the same level as a contract. As such, I think the government does have the right to legislate on who may or may not participate in such a contract; however, I haven't decided whether it should be an actual Constitutional amendment.
[OT] Personally, I don't understand the homosexual rights groups' arguments for why they need access to the institution of marriage. If civil unions provide the exact same rights as marriage, aren't they just being petty? I'm sure we've all read Shakespeare; "a rose by any other name..." Someone please enlighten me on this.[/OT]
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Feb 25 2004, 05:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Feb 25 2004, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One last chance to get back on topic, or I close this.
This topic is about Bush advocating an amendment to the Constitution. Some things you might discuss:
1) Is this an election year stunt? Is it going to help or hurt him? 2) Think it'll work? 3) Do we need this amendment? 4) Is this something that should be mandated on the federal level, or would it be better left to the states? 5) Is that his *real* hair? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) Stunt? no... it's called "maneuvering for room within one's constituent base." Once again, look back to my original post. He's a "compassionate conservative" president, or at least that was his campaign in 2000, who has increased government spending, increased federal funding of health care initiatives, increased the size and scope of multiple federal agencies--even going so far as to have created a super-agency out of the Department of Homeland Security--with an Attorney General who was soundly defeated by a <i>dead man</i>, continued to ask for increased spending, increased the size and scope of federal regulations/stipulations/funding of public schooling....
All those are decided <i>liberal</i> initiatives. Outside of rampant civil rights abuses (::cough:: USA PATRIOT Act which even New York City, the <i>site</i> of the rallying point for its passing has condemned as unconstitutional::cough:: ) and blatantly upper-crust-heavy tax cuts (married couples average 600 dollars, **** Cheney gets 14 million....in <i>one</i> tax cut) along with strong ties to various aspects of corrupt Big Business (Enron and Arthur Anderson ring a bell? Halliburton anyone?), Bush has been a decidedly <i>liberal</i> president by the political science definition of things here in America. Hell, he has been further from conservative than Bill Clinton was.
So where does this leave us? Bush needs to draw attention from all the liberal-backsliding he's done and re-establish his conservative mystique. He <i>has</i> to unless John Kerry absolutely drops the issue. He's just doing the same thing his father did regarding flag burning in the late 80s/early 90s....making a fuss about something that he <i>has</i> to take <i>some sort</i> of stance on, while at the same time, doing it in a manner that <i>will not go through</i>--a constitutional amendment that blatantly violates protected rights.
2) Will it work? Probably. Not the amendment itself, but the tactic will. The American public is decidedly short-sighted, forgetful, and has nothing even related to a long-term memory outside of "No more Vietnams." This will work because he can sit there and tell his conservative constituent base, "Hey, I did what I could, but those damend representatives and senators dropped the ball. BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M A DIRTY LIAR." Meanwhile he can turn to the liberals and moderates and say, "Yea, I said that, but we all knew it wouldn't go through. Seriously, I know better than to actually push for that..." and thus appease all parties involved. Politically, what he's doing is far from political suicide and is the smartest thing he could do. It's smart enough that I am fairly sure he didn't come up with the scam on his own.
3) No. But it won't go through. So why worry about it?
4) There will be no mandate outside of <i>stare decisis</i> and a Supreme Court ruling. Trust me, if it becomes that much of an issue, the <i>writ of ceritorari</i> will get through within a week and the case will be heard. The states will end up with no practical say in the matter anyway--who wants to be branded a dirty bigot (outside of some southern populations and Texans like some of my classmates <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
5) Is that really him or a sock puppet someone put a speaker box into?
And for the record, I <i>am</i> a Texan, and I don't really like him. The only way I vote for him is if he appoints Condelezza Rice as his running mate. It's the only hope the Republicans will have in '08 against the Clinton-Machine. Bill's not gone (exhibit a: character assasination of unnamed democratic hopeful(s) ), and he's building the foundation for Hillary in '08/'12. She'll be there in '08 if Kerry isn't the incumbent. If he is, then she'll be there in '12. Either way, the Republicans have the opportunity to put Condelezza Rice up in '08 if she runs as VP regardless of the White Houses resedents at that time.
Lastly people, realize that this issue is <span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>POLITICAL AND NOT RELIGIOUS/SEXUAL PREFERENCE</span> in its nature.
<!--QuoteBegin-Rat+Feb 25 2004, 11:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rat @ Feb 25 2004, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lastly people, realize that this issue is <span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>POLITICAL AND NOT RELIGIOUS/SEXUAL PREFERENCE</span> in its nature. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can't say its not both. It would be hard to deny that is political... But its also hard to deny that it is also religious. One just has a higher priority than the other it seems...
<!--QuoteBegin-[BFG]-|NiKoN|-+Feb 25 2004, 06:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([BFG]-|NiKoN|- @ Feb 25 2004, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 25 2004, 03:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 25 2004, 03:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marriage should be defined as something between a man and a woman simply to make sure that Marriage can't extend to other things, such as:
- Beasality (... dieseases, just... wrong) - Pligamy (too many legal issues, imagine a divorce) - Incest (Not only will any offspring be completely messed up, children shouldn't be married at young ages anyways)
I think "Civil Unions" is a great idea.
But Marrage needs to be defined as something between a man and a women to prevent any sort of the above from gaining a hold.
If, for some weird reason our society grows so liberal that we want Beastality, Pligamy, or Incest, we can make up some new laws and a new word to define marrige for any of the above.
So yes, I support marrige being defined as between a man and a women just to sort out the word game, like I originally posted at the start of this thread. It HAS to be done, it will save us all a lot of headaches in the future.
Never underestimate the power of a word and unclear definitions, take your examples from 1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ok, beastiality: how is homosexual marriage even related to beastiality??? how is human marriage of any kind a gateway to the marriage of a human and an animal, ever more so how does defining marriage as 'a union between a man and a woman' prevent this anymore than a definition that would include same sex?
Poligamy: again, in its current definition and the definition in question do nothing to effect the current state of this.
inscest: same thing as before, heck, homosexual inscest has less impact than heterosexual inscest does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If marriages extended to a man and a man, why not man and animal, why not man-woman-woman, why not father/daughter?
The line must be drawn for marriage to make sure nothing else can go out of control.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 26 2004, 02:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 26 2004, 02:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The line must be drawn for marriage to make sure nothing else can go out of control. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Alright, but why can't we draw the line just a little more liberally such that homosexuals can marry? Somehow I doubt it we would fall down your slippery slope.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I don't understand the homosexual rights groups' arguments for why they need access to the institution of marriage. If civil unions provide the exact same rights as marriage, aren't they just being petty? I'm sure we've all read Shakespeare; "a rose by any other name..." Someone please enlighten me on this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe you don't remember history class, I'll enlighten you. There was once this popular concept of 'separate but equal' treatment for blacks, who at the time were considered less-than-human by a good deal of the population. Of course, as separate as things were, they were rarely ever even close to equal. 'Civil Unions' are a 'separate but equal' concept, and our past has tought us why that isn't really equal. This has probably been discussed elsewhere in the thread (or in one of the related threads) in more depth.
Incidentally, do you want to see the the mayor of San Francisco get recalled because what he did was illegal, or because you have religious motivations? If the former (ha!), then don't you think Bush should be impeached because of his 'illegal' war?
What really bothers me about this is that the ultra-zealot religious folk keep trying to find logical reasons why homosexual marriage should be illegal, even though everybody already knows what motivates them. Its almost always the same with them, start with the conclusion and then find evidence to support it. That is why threads like this never get anywhere.
Well, I came back to the NS boards after quite a while away, and find some interesting discussions. Time to start posting again. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
According to the Mayor of San Francisco, his actions are legal, because the marriage laws are superseded by the California Constitution, which guards against discrimination and guarantees equal rights for everything. (I don't know the exact wording.)
It seems to me that the only objections to homosexual marriage are religious objections. Religion and government are supposed to be as separate as possible. By endorsing a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw homosexual marriage, President Bush is yet again bringing religion into politics in an Amendment that does nothing but discriminate. In my opinion, religious and civil marriage should be two entirely separate entities. That way religions would be free to marry or not marry whoever they want, while civil marriage would be open to everyone.
-------- 1) Is this an election year stunt? Is it going to help or hurt him? 2) Think it'll work? 3) Do we need this amendment? 4) Is this something that should be mandated on the federal level, or would it be better left to the states? 5) Is that his *real* hair?
---------
1) He's a politician. It's political.
2) Depends what his goals are. I doubt it will go through.
3) If the American constitution is anything like Australia's, it has a whole lot of assumptions that probably need clarifying. The law might need to be more clearly stated, one way or another.
People love to mess with definitions, but that can dilute the whole idea, for ex, here in Oz some people pretty much want to redefine "family" to embrace any group of closely-knit individuals- at which point the connotations of "family" will change, and people will invent another word to mean family-group- like gene-club maybe. And they'll come up with a new word for marriage. Conservatives will be heard to say "Oh, you'll have to meet my gene-club if we're going to get trad-bonded." Then liberals will insist that any group is a "gene-club" and any couple can "trad-bond"........ and so on. I personally think it's pretty meaningless regardless of what's "right" for that reason.
4) Depends on the nature of your federation. Federations are messy and stupid. I know. I live in one.
5) If it wasn't, wouldn't he choose cooler hair than that?
People get very high and mighty on the subject of morality, but we all have one, yes, all of us, and we all think ours is the right one. In the end, we all want it imposed to one extent or another. Even a totally amoral society would be an imposition, enforcing the absence of values on moral people.......
Americans are allowed to do alot these days. People living in america get away with alot, and have alot of freedoms. And i dont think one thing, that most of the country agrees with shall or shoudlnt be critizied.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-AsterOids+Feb 24 2004, 04:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 24 2004, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.
Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.
Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.
Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.
Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.
Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.
Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up."
- Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of Southern California <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> O_O
now thats an interesting twist on a already fabulous quote
My oppion on the whole thing is:
you can't do this becuase of this
you can't vote because you are female
you can't sit at the counter becuase you are black
you can't get married becuase you are homosexual
and what it all boils down to is that it's discrimination, and in this country discrimination usually doesn't stand
30 years from now we will look back upon this and wonder why it was an issue.
Comments
Also, why do people buy that rhetoric crap of being a homosexual equates to a "sexual preference"?
Guys, being a homosexual is like being born without an arm or with an extra head, it's a birth defect. In this sense, homosexuality is just abnormal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexuality is a birth defect ? You just say it like it is don't you ?
Homosexuality is no more a birth defect than eye colour is.
Are homosexuals abnormal too ?
by no means should any of this be at the whim of the judges, or anyone else. What should be happenening instead of just blantant disregard for the method that these things should be conducted in is that these laws should be challenged as unconstitutional. I was not justifiying the judges that sparked this trend, nor the actions of the San Fransico mayor in my original post. While I may agree that homosexuals should be able to be married, I dont think that a flippant disregard for the law is ok.
As for the matter of protecting the sanctity of marriage.......... well, sorry to break the news to ya, but it was ruined in this country along time ago
the US is peppered with drive-thru chapels, 'Ordained Ministers' in the 'Church of Light' which you pay $10 dollars for over the internet, an over 50% divorce rate and a large amount of the participants of marriage not even being religious.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. " <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This whole thread makes me wanna cry. It should have stopped with this quote, which people need to pay more attention to. OK, you're not g4y, you don't understand how a g4y person thinks or feels, and more importantly, you don't care, you don't think they deserve consideration. Why can't you just ignore them, then, instead of trying to restrict their civil liberties?
G4ys getting married hurts no one. Before anyone says it, no, it does not hurt children they may want to adopt. I have been raised by a single parent, of 1 gender, and I am not derranged because I haven't had 2 sexes of influence on my life. Children of g4y parents are no more likely to be g4y than children of str8 couples, and even if they were, so? That would only be a bad thing if homosexuality were a bad thing, which it's not. Homosexuality hurts no one; bigotry is the bad thing.
Also before anyone says it, g4y marriage does not damage the 'sanctity of marriage.' Las Vegas does, divorce does, the 99.9% of marriages that are because of something other than love do. 2 same-gendered people marrying for love brings LIFE to a near-dead institution.
Frankly, anyone who thinks homosexuality is a genetic defect -- I think they're the ones with genetic defects, if they can't accept (let alone embrace), or even resist demeaning someone different from them.
to get back to the quote... ppl who want to restrict freedoms like this... well, I don't know what you are -- tall, short, 'foreign,' whatever -- what happens when they decide it's time to restrict YOUR freedoms? "They never will, because I'm normal?" Ha, gimme a break.
The thing that scares me most about that article is that John Kerry, who will probably be the democratic candidate, also disapproves of g4y marriage. In other words, no matter what happens, g4ys are going to have a hard time in US society for at least 4 more years... (as if it'll ever stop)
edit: meant to include <a href='http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html' target='_blank'>this flash</a>, which is appropriate, hehe.
Also, why do people buy that rhetoric crap of being a homosexual equates to a "sexual preference"?
Guys, being a homosexual is like being born without an arm or with an extra head, it's a birth defect. In this sense, homosexuality is just abnormal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexuality is a birth defect ? You just say it like it is don't you ?
Homosexuality is no more a birth defect than eye colour is.
Are homosexuals abnormal too ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having a birth defect is abnormal. So yes g4ys are abnormal. I don't see the big deal here.
It seems to me the only ones here who are making a big deal of the entire "abnormal" crap the ones pushing g4y agenda.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now homosexuality is a defect? Anyone else want to offend them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one offended them. When wasn't homosexuality a defect?
Guys, I have something to admit to you all, I was born with a birth defect. I have a lazy eye. Please don't make fun of me or else I'm going to cry.
Actually I couldn't care less. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And I don't see why anyone else should be offended at a <b>biological defination</b> of a particular trait you happen to have.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Human beings, like every other organism on the planet, are out for themselves. We are selfish; almost everything we do is for personal benefit in one way, shape or form. Your mother didn't have a child because it's the selfless thing to do; she was driven by a genetic urge to procreate, as is every organism. It's in an individuals' personal interest to pass on their genes; nothing selfless about that. Indeed it's quite selfish. She cared for you for the same reason: wishing to see her genes passed on, because obviously her child has to procreate as well in order for this to fully occur.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, we, as individuals, wish to exploit others. A husband exploits his wife as a vessal for his child.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A mother pulls her children from a burning car because she wants to save her genetic carriers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using this definition... How is being a homosexual NOT contradictory to what the basic human drive is? Homosexuals can not have kids together... It's biologically impossible, as you should already know.
Note: Personally, I don't agree with Ryo's stance on life, i'm just posting his views for you guys...or something?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Human beings, like every other organism on the planet, are out for themselves. We are selfish; almost everything we do is for personal benefit in one way, shape or form. Your mother didn't have a child because it's the selfless thing to do; she was driven by a genetic urge to procreate, as is every organism. It's in an individuals' personal interest to pass on their genes; nothing selfless about that. Indeed it's quite selfish. She cared for you for the same reason: wishing to see her genes passed on, because obviously her child has to procreate as well in order for this to fully occur.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, we, as individuals, wish to exploit others. A husband exploits his wife as a vessal for his child.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A mother pulls her children from a burning car because she wants to save her genetic carriers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using this definition... How is being a homosexual NOT contradictory to what the basic human drive is? Homosexuals can not have kids together... It's biologically impossible, as you should already know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that would only matter if that were right, and well......... that whole definition is just sad. I dont believe it, nor do I feel it is scientifically correct. I pity someone who isnt even remotely compasionate about others, and thinks all emotion is selfishly driven.
by no means should any of this be at the whim of the judges, or anyone else. What should be happenening instead of just blantant disregard for the method that these things should be conducted in is that these laws should be challenged as unconstitutional. I was not justifiying the judges that sparked this trend, nor the actions of the San Fransico mayor in my original post. While I may agree that homosexuals should be able to be married, I dont think that a flippant disregard for the law is ok.
As for the matter of protecting the sanctity of marriage.......... well, sorry to break the news to ya, but it was ruined in this country along time ago
the US is peppered with drive-thru chapels, 'Ordained Ministers' in the 'Church of Light' which you pay $10 dollars for over the internet, an over 50% divorce rate and a large amount of the participants of marriage not even being religious. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, there are plent of reasons why a legal system is opposed to polygamy. Seeing as inheritance issues are a major part of homosexual marriage debates, why not examine the problem with polygamy? In a homosexual liason, there's generally two people, and one may not (currently) be legally entitled to their life partner's effects after death without <i>extensive</i> legal documentation to attest to their situation. It is one of the hot issues surrounding the whole thing. When it comes to <i>polygamy</i> however, without a will that expressly leaves X to wife #1 and Y to wife #2, how could the state equally distribute the estate of a deceased husband in an unbiased fashion? Two may seem simple, but if the man leaves five wives behind, how could you do it equally? Who would be the legal heir to the man? The first born child of the first wife? The first born child period? The latent issues with heirs and inheritance are enough of an issue without delving into the ability of a man to care equally and unbiasly for more than one wife. Hell, how would you file taxes? Would you get increased tax benefits from filing with more than one wife? Would that be constitutionally fair to those who do not practice polygamy, or are religiously denied the right to polygamy? Would you see more single-parent households where a man's wives raised his children without him being directly involved? What would the long term social/psychological aspects be of a child raised in a multi-mothered home?
There are an insane amount of questions that could be posed on this issue, and there are plenty of reasons why it should not be legal.
Also, why do people buy that rhetoric crap of being a homosexual equates to a "sexual preference"?
Guys, being a homosexual is like being born without an arm or with an extra head, it's a birth defect. In this sense, homosexuality is just abnormal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexuality is a birth defect ? You just say it like it is don't you ?
Homosexuality is no more a birth defect than eye colour is.
Are homosexuals abnormal too ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having a birth defect is abnormal. So yes g4ys are abnormal. I don't see the big deal here.
It seems to me the only ones here who are making a big deal of the entire "abnormal" crap the ones pushing g4y agenda.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now homosexuality is a defect? Anyone else want to offend them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one offended them. When wasn't homosexuality a defect?
Guys, I have something to admit to you all, I was born with a birth defect. I have a lazy eye. Please don't make fun of me or else I'm going to cry.
Actually I couldn't care less. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And I don't see why anyone else should be offended at a <b>biological defination</b> of a particular trait you happen to have. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
good god. If someone with a lazy eye was seen in Nazi Germany, they were carted off with the G4ys, the Jews, and everyone else 'imperfect' -- and knowing that, you still support distinctions like this?
Defect:
1 a : an imperfection that impairs worth or utility : SHORTCOMING <the grave defects in our foreign policy> b : an imperfection (as a vacancy or a foreign atom) in a crystal lattice
2 [Latin defectus] : a lack of something necessary for completeness, adequacy, or perfection : DEFICIENCY <a hearing defect>
saying homosexuality is a defect implies a lot of things. it implies homosexuality is genetic, which IMO it probably is, but isn't necessarily... and it implies that one or more of the following is true: g4ys are worth less, are less useful, are incomplete, inadequate, or imperfect. Quite frankly, only God can say who's perfect.
Not that I'm religious or anything, but threads like these make me wish God would wipe us all off the face of the earth and start over, because a species that can always find something to not accept in each other is a species I wish didn't exist.
Read up.
And yes, "removing and correcting" a defect should remind you of the Aryans.
The body is controlled by the brain. We feel the chemicals and react off the body. If we feel horny, we will eather follow it. Or make the consoice choice not to follow it.
When you are a baby growing the womb. your brain is growing. What it basicly does it just shoot out as many connections and nerons and such all over the place. basicly making you have everyskill you just about possess. When your a baby you start off with alot of useless connection, Kinda like a shrub that just went everywhere. As you grow up. the brain begins to trim the uneeded connections.. how you might ask? by the usage. basicly if you dont use your brain, you lose it. or if you wish. Lose the connections. Connections can be remade. but they take a hell of alot longer to remake.
Now how does this relate to homosexuals? basicly when you are born. you have the strong inferstructer that you should mate with someone of the oposite sex. But the connections are there for homosexual as well.
basicly you are born bysexual. able to go eather way. but with the stronger influence because of the surroundings and sercumstances of how you where consieved.
Now what does that entale exactly? it means that in a society that has a more open view about homosexuality will likely have more homosexuals. because its allowing the brain to devolope that way.
This is why alot of the strait community doesn't want homosexual marrage. They may see this. PLus deep inside they know that it will damage the population of the human race. So is it a genetic disablity? Very likely not. What i belive, and from what I have said above. Its mostly because of how the brain grows. Which is caused by the enviorment. Just like our enviorment and our choices has led us here to this momment.
Right now you may notice alot more bysexual women, than men. THat is because it is accepted more so by sciocoty. Thus the women allows thier thoughts....to go that way. inturn the brain starts making connections to to have both active for the chemicals in the body.
So what have you learned now?
<span style='color:yellow'>A: Homosexuality</span> is controlled by <span style='color:blue'>B: chemicals/horomons</span>
<span style='color:blue'>B: Horomons/chemicals</span> are controlled by <span style='color:orange'>C: the brain</span>
<span style='color:orange'>C: The brain </span>is controlled by <span style='color:red'>D: socioty/eviorment (soemtimes a few concouse choices )</span>
Thus if <span style='color:yellow'>A</span>=<span style='color:green'>B</span> <span style='color:green'>B</span>=<span style='color:orange'>C C</span>=<span style='color:red'>D</span>
then <span style='color:yellow'>A</span>=<span style='color:red'>D</span>basic math; Thus in conclusion
<span style='color:yellow'>A: Homosexuality </span>is breed, and controlled by <span style='color:red'>D: socioty (& soemtimes a few concouse choices )</span>
In turn you could say that Bush himself is Impossing his views upon the public. But for what resion? Is he trying to answer teh general audiance of the public view? maybe Is it based of relegion. Very Possable
Basicly bush in trying to control how socioty and its people grow up and evolve to.
Is he smart enough to realize this. <span style='color:green'>PROBRABLY NOT</span>. but maybe the relegions see this. THe more people you have. the more power you have
Now from this you might think I am against homosexuality. Nonsence. I dont mind em as long as they dont hit on me. The only resion why I support homosexuality/marrage. is cause I dont mind if the population of the planet is reduced. TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE with the dwindling resorces. I could care less if half of the populace goes homo. that mean one generation is basicly lost. and a few others.
To also speculate. maybe nature brought this in the human race to get rid of people since deseese isn't working
(on a side note, research has been done that the brain can also change genes. but I dont have a web sight. I maybe have a future edit that does)
my reasons of thinking why he might of done this are
1. he doesn't like homosexuals.
2. the rate of homosexuality marriages are increasing.
3. there might of been some "content" which might of not been legal, like as an example, going against the church, sinagod, mosque, or whatever people pray in, and the leaders of the buildings might have said that the religion says blah blah blah you cant marry same sex, and that might of had bush say, hmm you are right, and it goes against the constitution, but i dunno. thats just me ^_^ <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(sorry for any mispelled building names where people pray in)
This topic is about Bush advocating an amendment to the Constitution. Some things you might discuss:
1) Is this an election year stunt? Is it going to help or hurt him?
2) Think it'll work?
3) Do we need this amendment?
4) Is this something that should be mandated on the federal level, or would it be better left to the states?
5) Is that his *real* hair?
This topic is about Bush advocating an amendment to the Constitution. Some things you might discuss:
1) Is this an election year stunt? Is it going to help or hurt him?
2) Think it'll work?
3) Do we need this amendment?
4) Is this something that should be mandated on the federal level, or would it be better left to the states?
5) Is that his *real* hair? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
please guys, stay on topic. Coil is right, and I dont want to see this thread closed.
OT: oh yeah, coil, as far as Bush's hair goes, No, its not real, but he doesnt know, for the sake of 'Plausable Deniability' <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
- Beasality (... dieseases, just... wrong)
- Pligamy (too many legal issues, imagine a divorce)
- Incest (Not only will any offspring be completely messed up, children shouldn't be married at young ages anyways)
I think "Civil Unions" is a great idea.
But Marrage needs to be defined as something between a man and a women to prevent any sort of the above from gaining a hold.
If, for some weird reason our society grows so liberal that we want Beastality, Pligamy, or Incest, we can make up some new laws and a new word to define marrige for any of the above.
So yes, I support marrige being defined as between a man and a women just to sort out the word game, like I originally posted at the start of this thread. It HAS to be done, it will save us all a lot of headaches in the future.
Never underestimate the power of a word and unclear definitions, take your examples from 1984.
- Beasality (... dieseases, just... wrong)
- Pligamy (too many legal issues, imagine a divorce)
- Incest (Not only will any offspring be completely messed up, children shouldn't be married at young ages anyways)
I think "Civil Unions" is a great idea.
But Marrage needs to be defined as something between a man and a women to prevent any sort of the above from gaining a hold.
If, for some weird reason our society grows so liberal that we want Beastality, Pligamy, or Incest, we can make up some new laws and a new word to define marrige for any of the above.
So yes, I support marrige being defined as between a man and a women just to sort out the word game, like I originally posted at the start of this thread. It HAS to be done, it will save us all a lot of headaches in the future.
Never underestimate the power of a word and unclear definitions, take your examples from 1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok, beastiality: how is homosexual marriage even related to beastiality??? how is human marriage of any kind a gateway to the marriage of a human and an animal, ever more so how does defining marriage as 'a union between a man and a woman' prevent this anymore than a definition that would include same sex?
Poligamy: again, in its current definition and the definition in question do nothing to effect the current state of this.
inscest: same thing as before, heck, homosexual inscest has less impact than heterosexual inscest does.
*edit* addendum:
In regards to whether we need this amendment: Marriage is legally considered on the same level as a contract. As such, I think the government does have the right to legislate on who may or may not participate in such a contract; however, I haven't decided whether it should be an actual Constitutional amendment.
[OT] Personally, I don't understand the homosexual rights groups' arguments for why they need access to the institution of marriage. If civil unions provide the exact same rights as marriage, aren't they just being petty? I'm sure we've all read Shakespeare; "a rose by any other name..." Someone please enlighten me on this.[/OT]
This topic is about Bush advocating an amendment to the Constitution. Some things you might discuss:
1) Is this an election year stunt? Is it going to help or hurt him?
2) Think it'll work?
3) Do we need this amendment?
4) Is this something that should be mandated on the federal level, or would it be better left to the states?
5) Is that his *real* hair? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Stunt? no... it's called "maneuvering for room within one's constituent base." Once again, look back to my original post. He's a "compassionate conservative" president, or at least that was his campaign in 2000, who has increased government spending, increased federal funding of health care initiatives, increased the size and scope of multiple federal agencies--even going so far as to have created a super-agency out of the Department of Homeland Security--with an Attorney General who was soundly defeated by a <i>dead man</i>, continued to ask for increased spending, increased the size and scope of federal regulations/stipulations/funding of public schooling....
All those are decided <i>liberal</i> initiatives. Outside of rampant civil rights abuses (::cough:: USA PATRIOT Act which even New York City, the <i>site</i> of the rallying point for its passing has condemned as unconstitutional::cough:: ) and blatantly upper-crust-heavy tax cuts (married couples average 600 dollars, **** Cheney gets 14 million....in <i>one</i> tax cut) along with strong ties to various aspects of corrupt Big Business (Enron and Arthur Anderson ring a bell? Halliburton anyone?), Bush has been a decidedly <i>liberal</i> president by the political science definition of things here in America. Hell, he has been further from conservative than Bill Clinton was.
So where does this leave us? Bush needs to draw attention from all the liberal-backsliding he's done and re-establish his conservative mystique. He <i>has</i> to unless John Kerry absolutely drops the issue. He's just doing the same thing his father did regarding flag burning in the late 80s/early 90s....making a fuss about something that he <i>has</i> to take <i>some sort</i> of stance on, while at the same time, doing it in a manner that <i>will not go through</i>--a constitutional amendment that blatantly violates protected rights.
2) Will it work? Probably. Not the amendment itself, but the tactic will. The American public is decidedly short-sighted, forgetful, and has nothing even related to a long-term memory outside of "No more Vietnams." This will work because he can sit there and tell his conservative constituent base, "Hey, I did what I could, but those damend representatives and senators dropped the ball. BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M A DIRTY LIAR." Meanwhile he can turn to the liberals and moderates and say, "Yea, I said that, but we all knew it wouldn't go through. Seriously, I know better than to actually push for that..." and thus appease all parties involved. Politically, what he's doing is far from political suicide and is the smartest thing he could do. It's smart enough that I am fairly sure he didn't come up with the scam on his own.
3) No. But it won't go through. So why worry about it?
4) There will be no mandate outside of <i>stare decisis</i> and a Supreme Court ruling. Trust me, if it becomes that much of an issue, the <i>writ of ceritorari</i> will get through within a week and the case will be heard. The states will end up with no practical say in the matter anyway--who wants to be branded a dirty bigot (outside of some southern populations and Texans like some of my classmates <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
5) Is that really him or a sock puppet someone put a speaker box into?
And for the record, I <i>am</i> a Texan, and I don't really like him. The only way I vote for him is if he appoints Condelezza Rice as his running mate. It's the only hope the Republicans will have in '08 against the Clinton-Machine. Bill's not gone (exhibit a: character assasination of unnamed democratic hopeful(s) ), and he's building the foundation for Hillary in '08/'12. She'll be there in '08 if Kerry isn't the incumbent. If he is, then she'll be there in '12. Either way, the Republicans have the opportunity to put Condelezza Rice up in '08 if she runs as VP regardless of the White Houses resedents at that time.
Lastly people, realize that this issue is <span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>POLITICAL AND NOT RELIGIOUS/SEXUAL PREFERENCE</span> in its nature.
You can't say its not both. It would be hard to deny that is political... But its also hard to deny that it is also religious. One just has a higher priority than the other it seems...
- Beasality (... dieseases, just... wrong)
- Pligamy (too many legal issues, imagine a divorce)
- Incest (Not only will any offspring be completely messed up, children shouldn't be married at young ages anyways)
I think "Civil Unions" is a great idea.
But Marrage needs to be defined as something between a man and a women to prevent any sort of the above from gaining a hold.
If, for some weird reason our society grows so liberal that we want Beastality, Pligamy, or Incest, we can make up some new laws and a new word to define marrige for any of the above.
So yes, I support marrige being defined as between a man and a women just to sort out the word game, like I originally posted at the start of this thread. It HAS to be done, it will save us all a lot of headaches in the future.
Never underestimate the power of a word and unclear definitions, take your examples from 1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok, beastiality: how is homosexual marriage even related to beastiality??? how is human marriage of any kind a gateway to the marriage of a human and an animal, ever more so how does defining marriage as 'a union between a man and a woman' prevent this anymore than a definition that would include same sex?
Poligamy: again, in its current definition and the definition in question do nothing to effect the current state of this.
inscest: same thing as before, heck, homosexual inscest has less impact than heterosexual inscest does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If marriages extended to a man and a man, why not man and animal, why not man-woman-woman, why not father/daughter?
The line must be drawn for marriage to make sure nothing else can go out of control.
Alright, but why can't we draw the line just a little more liberally such that homosexuals can marry? Somehow I doubt it we would fall down your slippery slope.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I don't understand the homosexual rights groups' arguments for why they need access to the institution of marriage. If civil unions provide the exact same rights as marriage, aren't they just being petty? I'm sure we've all read Shakespeare; "a rose by any other name..." Someone please enlighten me on this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you don't remember history class, I'll enlighten you. There was once this popular concept of 'separate but equal' treatment for blacks, who at the time were considered less-than-human by a good deal of the population. Of course, as separate as things were, they were rarely ever even close to equal. 'Civil Unions' are a 'separate but equal' concept, and our past has tought us why that isn't really equal. This has probably been discussed elsewhere in the thread (or in one of the related threads) in more depth.
Incidentally, do you want to see the the mayor of San Francisco get recalled because what he did was illegal, or because you have religious motivations? If the former (ha!), then don't you think Bush should be impeached because of his 'illegal' war?
What really bothers me about this is that the ultra-zealot religious folk keep trying to find logical reasons why homosexual marriage should be illegal, even though everybody already knows what motivates them. Its almost always the same with them, start with the conclusion and then find evidence to support it. That is why threads like this never get anywhere.
According to the Mayor of San Francisco, his actions are legal, because the marriage laws are superseded by the California Constitution, which guards against discrimination and guarantees equal rights for everything. (I don't know the exact wording.)
It seems to me that the only objections to homosexual marriage are religious objections. Religion and government are supposed to be as separate as possible. By endorsing a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw homosexual marriage, President Bush is yet again bringing religion into politics in an Amendment that does nothing but discriminate. In my opinion, religious and civil marriage should be two entirely separate entities. That way religions would be free to marry or not marry whoever they want, while civil marriage would be open to everyone.
1) Is this an election year stunt? Is it going to help or hurt him?
2) Think it'll work?
3) Do we need this amendment?
4) Is this something that should be mandated on the federal level, or would it be better left to the states?
5) Is that his *real* hair?
---------
1) He's a politician. It's political.
2) Depends what his goals are. I doubt it will go through.
3) If the American constitution is anything like Australia's, it has a whole lot of assumptions that probably need clarifying. The law might need to be more clearly stated, one way or another.
People love to mess with definitions, but that can dilute the whole idea, for ex, here in Oz some people pretty much want to redefine "family" to embrace any group of closely-knit individuals- at which point the connotations of "family" will change, and people will invent another word to mean family-group- like gene-club maybe. And they'll come up with a new word for marriage. Conservatives will be heard to say "Oh, you'll have to meet my gene-club if we're going to get trad-bonded." Then liberals will insist that any group is a "gene-club" and any couple can "trad-bond"........ and so on. I personally think it's pretty meaningless regardless of what's "right" for that reason.
4) Depends on the nature of your federation. Federations are messy and stupid. I know. I live in one.
5) If it wasn't, wouldn't he choose cooler hair than that?
People get very high and mighty on the subject of morality, but we all have one, yes, all of us, and we all think ours is the right one. In the end, we all want it imposed to one extent or another. Even a totally amoral society would be an imposition, enforcing the absence of values on moral people.......
... or somethin'
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.
Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.
Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.
Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.
Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.
Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up."
- Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of Southern California <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
O_O
now thats an interesting twist on a already fabulous quote
My oppion on the whole thing is:
you can't do this becuase of this
you can't vote because you are female
you can't sit at the counter becuase you are black
you can't get married becuase you are homosexual
and what it all boils down to is that it's discrimination, and in this country discrimination usually doesn't stand
30 years from now we will look back upon this and wonder why it was an issue.