At least 7 states ban gay marriage...

[Henry]

Not trying to get into the debate here, but just some legal perspective... If a state legislature were to pass a law banning same sex marriage or restricting a marriage to a union between man and woman, that law may actually be attacked and declared unconstitutional under the state constitution. Therefore, passing a state constitutional amendment is the "safest" route.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would you need a law banning same-sex marriage? Was it legal in VA before the amendment passed? If not, why an amendment? Seems like overkill to me.

[The Evil Genius]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would you need a law banning same-sex marriage? Was it legal in VA before the amendment passed? If not, why an amendment? Seems like overkill to me.

So you can appeal to the bible thumpers come re-election time.

[ashburnskinsfan]

My opinion is I really do not care what you call it when two men decide to get a union. So long as the term marriage is not included.

The value of civil unions varies widely from state to state, unlike a marriage, which conveys rights to the spouse which are difficult to challenge.

Civil unions do not convey these same rights as marriage. I don't care what the 'union' is called but gay couples deserve protection under the law. Those who drafted the marriage amendmens (such as the one from Virginia below) did so to bring out their base to vote by discriminating against gay people, not to protect the institution of marriage.

If the legislators want to argue that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic let them do that. If they do not take this position they are clearly discriminating against gay couples by denying them equivalent civil rights.

Text of the Virginia Marriage Amendment

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

[Zguy28]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would you need a law banning same-sex marriage? Was it legal in VA before the amendment passed? If not, why an amendment? Seems like overkill to me.

Preemptive strike.

[grhqofb5]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would you need a law banning same-sex marriage? Was it legal in VA before the amendment passed? If not, why an amendment? Seems like overkill to me.

I think the marriage application has a place where you fill in the name of the "man" and the "woman." Also, court clerks (or whoever issues marriage licenses in a particular jurisdiction) came across this issue in the early 70s, which led to the passing of many of the current statutes restricting marriage. Interestingly, the Court Clerk is often the named party in an action challenging a marriage statute.

[Henry]

Preemptive strike.

That's exactly how I read it.

Sorry, that's not a good reason to change our constitution. In fact, I think it's a pretty lousy reason.

[NoCalMike]

YOU think it's a non-issue. But a lot of people in this country and in those states are sick of seeing the pervs smear the word marriage

I'd say Britney & K-fed SMEAR the word marriage a lot more then two commited homosexual men.

[NoCalMike]

You'll have to come up with a better example than that. Being metally retarded or having a stroke is not a choice

Ramming you rod up some guys arse is

No it's not. Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? I sure didn't, I just grew up attracted to females.

If being gay is such a CHOICE, why are all the conservative evangelicals getting exposed for being closeted, repressed homosexuals? Why didn't they just CHOOSE not to be gay?

[Zguy28]

I'd say Britney & K-fed SMEAR the word marriage a lot more then two commited homosexual men.

Show me two committed gay men.

I've known quite a few gay men and lesbians over the years and not one of them stayed with a partner for more than a few years at the longest.

My personal experience.

[Zguy28]

No it's not. Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? I sure didn't, I just grew up attracted to females.

If being gay is such a CHOICE, why are all the conservative evangelicals getting exposed for being closeted, repressed homosexuals? Why didn't they just CHOOSE not to be gay?

Haggard ain't gay by nature. He just liked the sex, hence hiring a prostitute and the drugs to give him a better orgasm. :puke:

[Larry]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would you need a law banning same-sex marriage? Was it legal in VA before the amendment passed? If not, why an amendment? Seems like overkill to me.

Actually, I've read some pieces that claim that one possible reason for the slew of "no gay marriage" measures (at every possible level of government) is because the "no gay marraige" people can read the polling data, and they can tell that they're going to be a minority in 5-10 years.

According to the things I've read, it's a lot more common for school-age kids to announce their "gay-hood" to their friends. (I've even read that in some environments, like college student women, it's now fashionable to be homosexual. I've seen comments from lesbians claiming that they're up to their necks (no pun intended) in women who "go straight" when they graduate (and move to an environment where being gay isn't "cool".))

According to those pieces, being gay isn't a stigma to a lot of young people. A lot of them even recall childhood friends who claimed to be gay. And those people are entering the ranks of voters.

The theory is that the Religous Right wants to get apartheid firmly written into as many places as possible, so that when they become a minority, the then-majority will have to jump through a lot of hoops to undo their "work".

[Larry]

I'd say Britney & K-fed SMEAR the word marriage a lot more then two commited homosexual men.

Actually, the analogy I'd heard was that they're "defending the sanctity of an institution" that can be performed on two drunks by an Elvis impersonator.

[Sarge]

No it's not. Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? I sure didn't, I just grew up attracted to females.

If being gay is such a CHOICE, why are all the conservative evangelicals getting exposed for being closeted, repressed homosexuals? Why didn't they just CHOOSE not to be gay?

Evidently, they made the wrong choice, and they are being slammed for it.

Ergo, if it had been the right choice they'd still be the head of their church and Dems would be saying "Yea, way to go hommie"

Instead, the Dems are slamming them as well

[portisizzle]

-----

(I'll also point out: In our society, it's been clear for thousands of years that a life becomes a person at birth. Some folks are now trying (with some justification, IMO) to change that. Does the fact that life (or at least "human-ness") began at birth untill recently mean that it's evil to try to re-define it?)

Our society has only been around for a few hundred years not thousands. And with the revelation that science has given us shall we ignor the reality that a fetus feels pain well before he/she is born.

Sorry for the tangent.

[Zguy28]

I've even read that in some environments, like college student women, it's now fashionable to be homosexual. I've seen comments from lesbians claiming that they're up to their necks (no pun intended) in women who "go straight" when they graduate

What does that tell you?

We're they straight or gay by nature or choice?

[portisizzle]

That's exactly how I read it.

Sorry, that's not a good reason to change our constitution. In fact, I think it's a pretty lousy reason.

You ignor my point. I would say it is better that the people change the constitution to deal with judges than to allow then to create law when it is not their job to do so.

[codeorama]

Can hermaphrodites reproduce?

I really don't know...

And if they can, what do they produce.... :paranoid:

[Zguy28]

And if they can, what do they produce.... :paranoid:

Chyna? :paranoid:

[NoCalMike]

Evidently, they made the wrong choice, and they are being slammed for it.

Ergo, if it had been the right choice they'd still be the head of their church and Dems would be saying "Yea, way to go hommie"

Instead, the Dems are slamming them as well

The Democrats are slamming them for their hypocrisy, not for being gay. I think it reflects more on a society and religious culture that has made them self-loathe and have so much shame for themselves that they have to sneak around while living a double-life.

[Sarge]

That's exactly how I read it.

Sorry, that's not a good reason to change our constitution. In fact, I think it's a pretty lousy reason.

I always use TV as an analogy for this. Look 50 years ago. Lucy and Ricky couldn't even be shown in the same bed together. Now you have Nip/Tuck and Real Sex

The homo's are going to keep pushing and pushing, bits and pieces at a time. Look at this thread. There are already people here, mostly kids, that think that being homo is normal, call it "Same sex marriage", are now using the term "opposite sex marriage" to refer to normal people, obstensively to put their behavior on the same moral ground. They equate the issue to the fight to civil rights etc.

Now, with it being in the Constitution, you can get all the ACLU lawyers you want.

It ain't gonna happen

[WeownU]

I find it highly ironic that the same right wingers who demand that the governement not touch their guns, and demand that the government stay the hell out of their lives, and demand that the government reduce taxes... these are the same people begging the government to step back into our lives to prevent actions they personally don't approve of. How do you justify that?

....

That was incredibly well written zoony. I couldn't agree more with you. People who are up in other peoples business make me sick.

[Sarge]

And if they can, what do they produce.... :paranoid:

Liberals

[Bang]

Nature did not intend for your penis to end up in a colon.

The sperm meets the egg naturally one way.

If someone is wired differently then by definition it is not normal.

I don't judge someone for the way they are wired. But don't expect me to teach my kids to view homosexuality to be tickle me elmo OK.

So because they're wired differently, you would begrudge them some of the things that make life worth living, like finding a mate, marrying them and doing the domestic thing... equal treatment under the law, equal insurance benefits, equal say in the lives of their mates,, etc.

I'd hate to see how you treat people in wheelchairs. i mean, them people just ain't right. god meant for them to be walking around, that's why he gave them two legs... why in hell theirs don't work must be their punishment for something. Blind people must be simply freaks, especially if they were born that way.

Live and let live?

Turn the other cheek?

Love thy neighbor?

Compassion?

Any of that kind of stuff your boy Jesus taught ever ring a bell?

Your entire participation in this thread is one of judgment. You've judged that because they're "wired differently" then they deserve to be treated like 3rd class citizens or worse.

You've used an utterly idiotic analogy between a human being and a dog to try to make a point you insist you've made, when in reality you haven't.

(those who you're trying to convince do not accept the dog as an adequate analogy to a person. It kind of ruins your attempt at a point when those you're arguing with laugh at your chosen illustration)

However, you , being non-judgmental of the differently wired person, have compared him to a dog.

Not that any of this will matter, i figured I'd say my piece.

Now back to your regularly scheduled intolerance.

~Bang

[Coooleeey]

(I've even read that in some environments, like college student women, it's now fashionable to be homosexual. I've seen comments from lesbians claiming that they're up to their necks (no pun intended) in women who "go straight" when they graduate (and move to an environment where being gay isn't "cool".))

I said I wouldn't add anything to this thread but whatever...

I saw this same situation happen right before my very eyes. One of my ex's was friends with a group of girls that all experimented and 3 of the 4 of them turned completely lesbian. Yeah right...after college was over they all got married to MEN and most now have children.

Its all about what you experienced. From that experience I decided being gay is a choice. But from my co-worker who is lesbian she says she was born that way. All through school she felt different. What's wierd is that she was married for several years to a man? I don't buy it.

Personally, (I know I'm going to get flamed) I don't think you are born gay. I think something attracts you to either the lifestyle, or care the person will give you. Being the rebel, or the drama that surely exists when two people of the same sex are in a relationship.

Just my :2cents:

[Mooka]

This post shouldn't even be legitimized with reply, but oh well, here goes.

Gee, that was an intelligent contribution to the debate. :doh: indeed.

That was no contribution, I just like the smilies.

*here ya go though. Illegally exploiting children for pornography and two consenting adults whom are already living with eachother able to have the tax benefits of marriage is trully apples and oranges. Two very different things.