US Constitutiona Amendment to Save Marriage...NOW!

Self | 11-18-03 | Always Right

[gridlock]

Given that we have lost the ability to pass good laws, shouldn't we just limit the damage?

[biblewonk]

So are you going to talk me down, is there any reason to keep voting if the Republicans refuse do to something about this?

[richtig_faust]

Well, I do apologize for jumping the gun, but you have to understand. This issue has been a hot button issue for several years and the same arguments keep coming out that are simply illogical and wrong. I just got tired of repeating the facts over and over.

[biblewonk]

Given that we have lost the ability to pass good laws, shouldn't we just limit the damage?

That's good, I guess I expected that when I was done typing. There are a lot of good laws regarding fiscal issues but we have lost our bearing regarding moral issues. Atleast we have an administration that believes that drugs should not be legal. Prostitution is still illegal yet it is almost never enforced anymore. The Cedar Rapids Gazette had a piece showing that in 02 only 1 or 2 ho's were busted in all of CR all year.

[dougx]

6 of those 7 "gay" liberal judges were appointed by Republican governors.

[atlaw]

Huh?

[NutCrackerBoy]

I retract the accusation of harsh rhetoric. Your phraseology was awkward for me. I will go further than mere retraction, toward agreement.

Not as a Christian, but as an American, I categorically reject the notion that it is good for gay marriages and gay adoptions and gay politicians and gay teachers to be openly acknowledged to children and all. I reject the notion that unions between gays are to be held up publicly as equally valuable as marriage.

I do not categorize what homosexuals do privately as sinful, nor do I recommend total abstinence on their part. Nor do I know how Christians should feel.

What I take from your comment about the 19th amendment, is that things here were changing slowly and we became a liberal society, in a good sense. In the same sense that Afghanistan has liberalized. Women won voting privileges.

But now the notion of "equality" has become fetishized. In the area of race, I do believe in equality under the law. I do believe in the endeavor for public policy to become completely race-blind.

But it is not so clear-cut for gender, and certainly not for sexual orientation. The liberal movement is unwilling to make distinctions proper to these areas.

[newcats]

Wonder 26 year old data!
As for those numbers...I guess polls count ONLY when they support your view, but when they disagree, then they are worthless.
Either get some relevant current data, or shut up. And poll #s do not count as data.

[newcats]

DU has a lot of threads about having sex with cats. That's their mindset

Where the heck did that come from?
Since you know so much about what goes on over there, perhaps you should go back and stay. Seems like all you want to do is disrupt and insult people. You would fit in quite well over there.

[richtig_faust]

Where the hell do you come up with the idea that the statistic is 26 years old? I read it LAST YEAR. That makes it one year old.

[newcats]

They want to lower the age of sexual consent to 10.

Back this up with CREDABLE (not some wacko fringe groups dreams) evidence please. I dare ya.

[richtig_faust]

You crazy liberals, it is so easy to disprove your drivel.

http://www.leaderu.com/issues/fabric/chap11.html

You can also find this in a myriad of other places if you actually care to do a search.

Research by E. L. Goodman indicates that 30 percent of all currently 20-year-old "gay" men will be either HIV-positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are 30 years of age. And the journal, Omega, reports that the average age of death for HIV-infected men is age 39; while the average age of death of homosexual men for all other causes is age 42.

[longtermmemmory]

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

---

Chairman's Welcome

Weekly Schedule

Press Room

Committee Members

Hearings & Markups

Committee Documents

Documents of Interest

Judiciary Democrats

Special Needs

Congressional Links

About the Committee

Student Research

Privacy Policy

Intern Program

Contact the Chairman

Homepage

---

Subcommittee Members

Subcommittee on the Constitution Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman
362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King	Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins	Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus	Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler	Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart	Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney
Mr. Forbes

 

[newcats]

It has to be done with the original texts.

The ORIGINAL texts eh? And whn did this discovery occur? I must have missed it on the news. Please do not tell me that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the "original" texts. But don't let me stop you from making a complete a$$ of yourself.

[biblewonk]

I retract the accusation of harsh rhetoric. Your phraseology was awkward for me. I will go further than mere retraction, toward agreement.

I understand, most people hate the word sodomite.

Not as a Christian, but as an American, I categorically reject the notion that it is good for gay marriages and gay adoptions and gay politicians and gay teachers to be openly acknowledged to children and all. I reject the notion that unions between gays are to be held up publicly as equally valuable as marriage.

I do not categorize what homosexuals do privately as sinful, nor do I recommend total abstinence on their part. Nor do I know how Christians should feel.

But if there is no sin in what they do in private, to which I don't agree, then why do you take issue with the things listed. Otherwise there must be something wrong with two men sleeping together.

What I take from your comment about the 19th amendment, is that things here were changing slowly and we became a liberal society, in a good sense. In the same sense that Afghanistan has liberalized. Women won voting privileges.

When I watch Mary Poppins and see the man of the house sitting back while his wife is out doing politics, it almost makes me cry. Biblewonks have a different perspective on male vs female roles. There was an excellent post on the FR of an article written by women who were opposed to the 19th amendment written before the 19th amendment was passed.

But now the notion of "equality" has become fetishized. In the area of race, I do believe in equality under the law. I do believe in the endeavor for public policy to become completely race-blind.

Absolutely!

But it is not so clear-cut for gender, and certainly not for sexual orientation. The liberal movement is unwilling to make distinctions proper to these areas.

But you said earlier that what homos do in private is not a sin in your eyes so why the double standard. It's either perfectly OK or a sin against God or a sin against nature.

[newcats]

I went to that link, but saw nothing about feline sex. Am I missing something?
Perhaps you are getting confused?

[MEGoody]

"Besides, what harm does it do?"

Depends on what you call harm. I believe it would be of benefit to society to have a nationally recognized definition of marriage. For example, it would allow transfer of spousal insurance coverage when one moves between states.

It also sets a societal standard. For example, where is the 'marital' line? Can one man marry three women? Can a woman marry a dog? You may laugh about those examples, but just 20 years ago, people would have laughed at the idea of legalized gay marriage.

[newcats]

Where the hell do you come up with the idea that the statistic is 26 years old? I read it LAST YEAR. That makes it one year old.

I read some Plato last year, does that mean he wrote it last year?
I got the idea from your own post...."In 1977, Time Magazine polled 10,000 members of the APA at random. In the article "Sick Again", Time showed these results".
2003-1977= 26. It's called simple arithmatic.

[MEGoody]

"What this basically boils down to is the separation of church and state."

Incorrect. The nation as a whole has to address the issue of what is best for society. It seems clear to me that legalizing gay marriage is not in the best interests of society as a whole. But regardless of that, I do believe there needs to be a nationally recognized definition of marriage for purely legal reasons (e.g. insurance, taxes) as well as for determining what our societal expectations are. By that last phrase, I mean, are we going to allow polygamy? What about marriage between a person and an animal? I think a line needs to be drawn.

[richtig_faust]

OK, i'll try to get down to your level. You freaks claim you were "born that way" strictly based upon a 1973 poll that was taken. That makes your CURRENT opinion 2003 - 1973 = 30 years old. Hence, my data is newer, back in the closet you freak. Plus the burden of proof is on you perverts, not us -- but monozygotic studies etc. have already proven you wrong.