Gay marriage, why is this even an issue?

Ducimus · 06-05-06, 03:46 PM

Bush urges federal marriage amendment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442710/

I don't get it. Don't they have anything better to waste tax dollars on? I do not understand why this needs to be in the forefront.

Firstly, if a couple fudgepackers want to get married, what buisness is it of mine? None. Not my life, not my choice or decision, i dont see the point in butting ones nose into peoples private buisness.

Second, do i care what those people do? nope, could care less. They can do whatever they want, as long as it doesnt effect me directly,I really don't give a ****.

Thirdly, why can't they just be honest and say, This is all about the religious rightwing having a tissy fit? Thats what irks me. In my opinion, this whole measure, is made by people with the bible in their back pocket.

And no, im not gay, infact, im homophobic

TLAM Strike · 06-05-06, 03:55 PM

Congressonal Elections in November, Prez in '08 thats why.

And your right it shouldn't be an issue. As I see it some religions do allow for Gay/Lesbian marrage therefor under the 1st Amendment they can be married.

Skybird · 06-05-06, 04:11 PM

Most Western constitutions put the family (mother-father-CHILDREN) under protection the state and the law, in the imterest of the weakest member of this constellation: children. Family has been hard and core of every social community, forming the basic cell without which no community could survive or even be formed up. Some people - like me, I say - do not see the need to put the relation between two adults of the same sex that never will form a family under the same ammount of protection - in whose imnterest? Children? There are none, and there will never be any (I strictly oppose the idea of making it regular habit that gay or lesbian couples could be turned into a family by adopting children, I think children need to experience the male qualities of a father as well as the female qualities of a mother during their education). Although data seem to be diverse, I have beehn shown enoiugh indications to make me think that children that are raised by mother or father alone, do show statistically significant (thus no spectacular) differences in their later social behavior, there has been a lot of research done especially in the 70s, but also later. I do not see any need while adoptation by homosexual couples must be turned into a regular practice. Nature would have taken care for that, if it is a wanted solution.

I am no phobic about homosexuals, I had loose friendships with two gay buddies during university myself, and never took care, for they never made an issue of it, you even did not realize they were "different", their behavior was absolutely "normal" comlpared to the people around. Wjhat I do not like is if gays and lesbians start to flirt with their diffrent sexual taste, if they say a gay relation is the same like a normal family raising children, or if the start to parade in the streets to show how much en vogue they are.

But what makes me really boiling is - like happened in Germany some months ago - politicians suddenly discover that the crowd perceives it as poltici8al correctness to cheer and to hail gay politicians if they out themselves in front of running cameras. First it became known from the leader of the liberal party. Then a mayor followed, and then three or four other politicans on national level as well. suddenly it was a big story. "I am gay, I am en vogue, now you must support me to show you have no ressentiments againsts gays..."

I have nothing against gays and lesbians as long as they do not try to make profit from it or start to flirt ("kokettieren") with it, but things like Cristopher Street Day make me wanting to vomit all day long (like I also would not tolerate it when women suddenly start to walk on the street all naked - it is aggression of a special kind, and thus an attack on, at least a provocative violation of the personal sphere of others. They want to be respected and treated like normal human being? Iam all for that, opkay. But then they should leave the institution of family and the protection by the state that it dersves alone, and should behave just like what they want to be perceived as: normal.

A gay member of the Green party in the Bundestag found it not to be a self-damaging violation of his (representative) status to join a pro-gay march in Moscow some days ago. Russia is not known for it's tolerance on these things. The demonstration was confronted by militia and polcie, which then started to join ranks with counter-demonstrators and let sticiks and fists fly. Our dear member of the bundestag was hit in the face by one fist, and then expressed into the cameras how shocking and rude it all was.

I grinned for minutes, I admit. no problem with gays. Has been part of community life since centuries and millenias. But no culture was so stupid to make it a norm, or put it on equal rank with the norm that enables social life of a community: hetereo relations, family, and children. No problem with gays. Problem it becomes if you start to tell all the world about your sexual behavior again and again, and even start to collect votes by giving your orientation as an argument.

No, no sympathy on gay marriage from my side. Just more of this PC it is.

August · 06-05-06, 04:22 PM

God, i'm agreeing with Skybird! Wait let me put on a helmet lest the sky fall on my noggin.:rotfl:

In this country gays have what are called "civil unions" which give them the benefits of being married without redefining the meaning of marriage which is between a man and a woman.

Skybird · 06-05-06, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

God, i'm agreeing with Skybird! .

This does not mean that we will ever take a hot shower together.

scandium · 06-05-06, 04:22 PM

Here in Canada our recently elected Conservative government is making an issue of this as well - even though its already been settled by our Supreme Court. Personally I have no real feelings on the issue either way, other than feeling irked by a government that pretends it has nothing better to do than re-open an issue that was just settled.

Drebbel · 06-05-06, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

And no, im not gay

I am so sorry, cheer up mate, will all look better tomorrow !

CCIP · 06-05-06, 07:01 PM

Yawn, it's all politics. There's really no basis for all the noisy opposition to it other than political uses of religious sentiment.
I agree with Ducimius there, and although I'm not homophobic I really could care less about it.

On a referendum, I'd vote in favour of it, but that would also be a political move on my part to show my disapproval of the Conservatives.

Ducimus · 06-05-06, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drebbel

I am so sorry, cheer up mate, will all look better tomorrow !

It's funny, we had this conversation at work not too long ago, how the definition of the word "gay" has changed over the years. Sure gay still means happy, but thats not the first thing that pops into someones head when they hear the word.

Bort · 06-05-06, 09:10 PM

The reasons Bush is doing this is simple.
1. In order to have any chance whatsoever at maintaining control of Congress, the Republicans must energize their radical evangelical base, and nothing riles up bible thumpers (save abortion) like gay marriage.
2. This issue, just like the illegal immigration issue brought up not long ago, serves the purpose of redirecting the nation's attention away from the Iraq War. Bush would rather the country was talking about anything but that. These non-issues fit the bill perfectly. People get fired up, and, the GOP hopes, forget about the war.

As far as the issue itself goes, not allowing gays to marry violates at least two constitutional amendments (First and Fourteenth). Personally, I find barring gays from marriage, or anyone from any right for that matter, to be repulsive. If some conservative churches won't allow it, fine, I could care less, but they have no right to impress their will in regards to who can and cannot exercise certain rights on fellow citizens.

PeriscopeDepth · 06-05-06, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *[FOX]* Bort

The reasons Bush is doing this is simple.
1. In order to have any chance whatsoever at maintaining control of Congress, the Republicans must energize their radical evangelical base, and nothing riles up bible thumpers (save abortion) like gay marriage.
2. This issue, just like the illegal immigration issue brought up not long ago, serves the purpose of redirecting the nation's attention away from the Iraq War. Bush would rather the country was talking about anything but that. These non-issues fit the bill perfectly. People get fired up, and, the GOP hopes, forget about the war.

Bingo. I have an internship with a state assembly campaign for a guy that's trying to appeal as the "real conservative". A big chunk of his voter contact effort is dedicated to appealing to conservative churches through his opposition to gay marriage.

PD

Umfuld · 06-06-06, 03:24 AM

Skybird's thoughts are so offensive to me I'm not even going to dignify them with a response. And I'm heterosexual.

I don't know, it frightens me that people feel so free to express their bigotries with no fear of any consequences. It's a scary time we live in.

werauchimmer · 06-06-06, 03:55 AM

Thats the internet. You can express as much of your bigoteries here as you like, its semi anonymous, so you need not have fear about serious repercussions if you express your views, extremist, cotroversial, whatever.

About the topic: I could´nt care less. Let them marry, its mostly a tax thing nowadays anyway.

VipertheSniper · 06-06-06, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by werauchimmer

I could´nt care less.

Almost got it right, but I guess it was just a typo... Now all the other guys repeat with me: I couldn't care less.

SUBMAN1 · 06-07-06, 09:28 PM

Its a major issue. You are talking about the very fabric that hold society together. To destroy that fabric, without getting into detail, you destroy the society.

Go ask the Romans and Greeks - took the Romans 1000 years to accomplish what the US will do in 250 years. Gays trying to marry is part of their downfall since it represents their society falling apart. What it eventually leads to, this and other things, is a country (or republic or empire for that matter) that no one is willing to fight for. This is just one part of the puzzle however. Another is a here now attitude vs. leaving something for your children, etc. But this isn't of course happening to the US (Choke!...Sarcasm!)! This time, it will not be the Germanic tribes walking across our borders....

But of course, you can never tell what is going to happen in the future by studying the past (Sarcasm...choke...choke!)!

-S

06-05-06, 03:46 PM	#1
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Gay marriage, why is this even an issue? Bush urges federal marriage amendment http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442710/ I don't get it. Don't they have anything better to waste tax dollars on? I do not understand why this needs to be in the forefront. Firstly, if a couple fudgepackers want to get married, what buisness is it of mine? None. Not my life, not my choice or decision, i dont see the point in butting ones nose into peoples private buisness. Second, do i care what those people do? nope, could care less. They can do whatever they want, as long as it doesnt effect me directly,I really don't give a ****. Thirdly, why can't they just be honest and say, This is all about the religious rightwing having a tissy fit? Thats what irks me. In my opinion, this whole measure, is made by people with the bible in their back pocket. And no, im not gay, infact, im homophobic

06-05-06, 03:55 PM	#2
TLAM Strike Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Rochester, New York Posts: 8,633 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 6	Congressonal Elections in November, Prez in '08 thats why. And your right it shouldn't be an issue. As I see it some religions do allow for Gay/Lesbian marrage therefor under the 1st Amendment they can be married. __________________

06-05-06, 04:11 PM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,604 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Most Western constitutions put the family (mother-father-CHILDREN) under protection the state and the law, in the imterest of the weakest member of this constellation: children. Family has been hard and core of every social community, forming the basic cell without which no community could survive or even be formed up. Some people - like me, I say - do not see the need to put the relation between two adults of the same sex that never will form a family under the same ammount of protection - in whose imnterest? Children? There are none, and there will never be any (I strictly oppose the idea of making it regular habit that gay or lesbian couples could be turned into a family by adopting children, I think children need to experience the male qualities of a father as well as the female qualities of a mother during their education). Although data seem to be diverse, I have beehn shown enoiugh indications to make me think that children that are raised by mother or father alone, do show statistically significant (thus no spectacular) differences in their later social behavior, there has been a lot of research done especially in the 70s, but also later. I do not see any need while adoptation by homosexual couples must be turned into a regular practice. Nature would have taken care for that, if it is a wanted solution. I am no phobic about homosexuals, I had loose friendships with two gay buddies during university myself, and never took care, for they never made an issue of it, you even did not realize they were "different", their behavior was absolutely "normal" comlpared to the people around. Wjhat I do not like is if gays and lesbians start to flirt with their diffrent sexual taste, if they say a gay relation is the same like a normal family raising children, or if the start to parade in the streets to show how much en vogue they are. But what makes me really boiling is - like happened in Germany some months ago - politicians suddenly discover that the crowd perceives it as poltici8al correctness to cheer and to hail gay politicians if they out themselves in front of running cameras. First it became known from the leader of the liberal party. Then a mayor followed, and then three or four other politicans on national level as well. suddenly it was a big story. "I am gay, I am en vogue, now you must support me to show you have no ressentiments againsts gays..." I have nothing against gays and lesbians as long as they do not try to make profit from it or start to flirt ("kokettieren") with it, but things like Cristopher Street Day make me wanting to vomit all day long (like I also would not tolerate it when women suddenly start to walk on the street all naked - it is aggression of a special kind, and thus an attack on, at least a provocative violation of the personal sphere of others. They want to be respected and treated like normal human being? Iam all for that, opkay. But then they should leave the institution of family and the protection by the state that it dersves alone, and should behave just like what they want to be perceived as: normal. A gay member of the Green party in the Bundestag found it not to be a self-damaging violation of his (representative) status to join a pro-gay march in Moscow some days ago. Russia is not known for it's tolerance on these things. The demonstration was confronted by militia and polcie, which then started to join ranks with counter-demonstrators and let sticiks and fists fly. Our dear member of the bundestag was hit in the face by one fist, and then expressed into the cameras how shocking and rude it all was. I grinned for minutes, I admit. no problem with gays. Has been part of community life since centuries and millenias. But no culture was so stupid to make it a norm, or put it on equal rank with the norm that enables social life of a community: hetereo relations, family, and children. No problem with gays. Problem it becomes if you start to tell all the world about your sexual behavior again and again, and even start to collect votes by giving your orientation as an argument. No, no sympathy on gay marriage from my side. Just more of this PC it is. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 06-05-06 at 04:15 PM.

06-05-06, 04:22 PM	#4
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	God, i'm agreeing with Skybird! Wait let me put on a helmet lest the sky fall on my noggin.:rotfl: In this country gays have what are called "civil unions" which give them the benefits of being married without redefining the meaning of marriage which is between a man and a woman. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

06-05-06, 07:01 PM	#8
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Yawn, it's all politics. There's really no basis for all the noisy opposition to it other than political uses of religious sentiment. I agree with Ducimius there, and although I'm not homophobic I really could care less about it. On a referendum, I'd vote in favour of it, but that would also be a political move on my part to show my disapproval of the Conservatives. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

06-05-06, 04:22 PM	#6
scandium Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,098 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Here in Canada our recently elected Conservative government is making an issue of this as well - even though its already been settled by our Supreme Court. Personally I have no real feelings on the issue either way, other than feeling irked by a government that pretends it has nothing better to do than re-open an issue that was just settled.

06-05-06, 09:10 PM	#10
Bort Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Studying in Atlanta Posts: 919 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 0	The reasons Bush is doing this is simple. 1. In order to have any chance whatsoever at maintaining control of Congress, the Republicans must energize their radical evangelical base, and nothing riles up bible thumpers (save abortion) like gay marriage. 2. This issue, just like the illegal immigration issue brought up not long ago, serves the purpose of redirecting the nation's attention away from the Iraq War. Bush would rather the country was talking about anything but that. These non-issues fit the bill perfectly. People get fired up, and, the GOP hopes, forget about the war. As far as the issue itself goes, not allowing gays to marry violates at least two constitutional amendments (First and Fourteenth). Personally, I find barring gays from marriage, or anyone from any right for that matter, to be repulsive. If some conservative churches won't allow it, fine, I could care less, but they have no right to impress their will in regards to who can and cannot exercise certain rights on fellow citizens. __________________ GT Aerospace

06-06-06, 03:24 AM	#12
Umfuld Captain Join Date: May 2006 Location: USA Posts: 503 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Skybird's thoughts are so offensive to me I'm not even going to dignify them with a response. And I'm heterosexual. I don't know, it frightens me that people feel so free to express their bigotries with no fear of any consequences. It's a scary time we live in.

06-06-06, 03:55 AM	#13
werauchimmer Seaman Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 35 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Thats the internet. You can express as much of your bigoteries here as you like, its semi anonymous, so you need not have fear about serious repercussions if you express your views, extremist, cotroversial, whatever. About the topic: I could´nt care less. Let them marry, its mostly a tax thing nowadays anyway.

06-07-06, 09:28 PM	#15
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Its a major issue. You are talking about the very fabric that hold society together. To destroy that fabric, without getting into detail, you destroy the society. Go ask the Romans and Greeks - took the Romans 1000 years to accomplish what the US will do in 250 years. Gays trying to marry is part of their downfall since it represents their society falling apart. What it eventually leads to, this and other things, is a country (or republic or empire for that matter) that no one is willing to fight for. This is just one part of the puzzle however. Another is a here now attitude vs. leaving something for your children, etc. But this isn't of course happening to the US (Choke!...Sarcasm!)! This time, it will not be the Germanic tribes walking across our borders.... But of course, you can never tell what is going to happen in the future by studying the past (Sarcasm...choke...choke!)! -S __________________