• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Defense of Marriage

Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
50
Wouldn't it be un-constitutional for there to be any sort of law preventing gay marriage? There are to arguments against it, neither one can really stand on its own and make a legitimate point though. First we have all sorts of religious texts. Now we can't put something into law because of what the bible says, that is no very secular now is it? Second we have a bunch of statistics. AIDS is more common amoung homosexuals. AIDS is also really common amoung other minority groups. AIDS all over Africa if anyone recalls that, its a global problem, it is a false assumption that AIDS is a gay issue, didn't we realize that about 15 years ago? So basically the only way that we will end up with some Defense of Marriage act is if it is backed up with statistics. Statistics lie.

Eventhough the push for gay marriage is like demanding acceptance into main stream society, I am finding it hard to find a legitamite reason against it.
 
I am curious about Dubya's announcements about wanting to "codify" marriage. Isn't marriage currently handled by the states? Wouldn't an attempt to legislate it at the federal level amount to an infringement on "state's rights"?
 
well, you know how little the Republicans support states rights over Federal Law. Bigger Federal government is better, isn't that what Bush ran on?
 
Eventhough the push for gay marriage is like demanding acceptance into main stream society

Hmm, is that what homophobes call the 'gay agenda'?

What's wrong with acceptance, I totally support it. I do feel it is a rights issue. What if you were denied the chance to be married to your love because you have a physical disability. It's the same if you ask my HO. It's discrimination. It's not polygamy. It's not children being married to someone 4 times older than them.

It may even help lower the AIDS rates if there is less promiscuity. I would hope marriage is seen as sacred and people would have less partners.

As long as that happens, I'm thinking gay marriages could be a big plus.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Hmm, is that what homophobes call the 'gay agenda'?

What's wrong with acceptance, I totally support it. I do feel it is a rights issue. What if you were denied the chance to be married to your love because you have a physical disability. It's the same if you ask my HO. It's discrimination. It's not polygamy. It's not children being married to someone 4 times older than them.

It may even help lower the AIDS rates if there is less promiscuity. I would hope marriage is seen as sacred and people would have less partners.

As long as that happens, I'm thinking gay marriages could be a big plus.

We don't want to catch gay, or give it to our kids.
 
prettygirlsmakegrave said:
Wouldn't it be un-constitutional for there to be any sort of law preventing gay marriage?

The constitution doesn't address marriage. I don't think marriage laws would fall under the Privacy like sodomy laws do.
 
American said:


We don't want to catch gay, or give it to our kids.

I know I know. We rent the other half of our duplex to a gay couple. For some reason my son still likes girls (he's 12). I really don't understand why he is not all infested with 'gay'. I still prefer men, and my husband won't even hug another guy. Maybe it takes a few years to catch gay, or even just get bi.

:roll:
 
arcticpenguin said:
I am curious about Dubya's announcements about wanting to "codify" marriage. Isn't marriage currently handled by the states? Wouldn't an attempt to legislate it at the federal level amount to an infringement on "state's rights"?
Clearly. No power given the Federal government by the Constitution includes the ability to define marriage. No real conservative would want the Federal Government getting involved in such matters.

Of course, I may not be as smart as the President, but I seem to remember that they passed the Defense of Marriage Act just a few years ago.
 
content free? I was kidding (if your referring to my last post). I'm also Canadian. :)

If you're not referring to my last post, then please ignore this post :D
 
With regard to your last post, I was not referring to your previous post but rather the post by another poster who I named at the end of my last post.

post post post.
 
Ah, me see. I don't pay enough attention to peoples' names who are making posts. I finally saw the name of the person who posted the post that I'm not sure is a joke or serious. I was assuming they didn't mean it. It's very american to be sarcastic.:D
 
Eos of the Eons said:
.... I'm not sure is a joke or serious. I was assuming they didn't mean it. It's very american to be sarcastic.


We haven't met, have we?


I was serious. But since I'm not serious about anything, it doesn't matter. Men will do men, with or without my support. Why even argue about it....
 
:roll: Okay, I really thought you were not serious. You can't catch gay even if you get laid by one...LOL!! Like I said, we have gay tenants that we share a duplex with. Everyone in the neighborhood is still as they were before our tenants moved in.

Acceptance won't lead to more gay people. It would more likely cause less suicides and less depression among gays. I believe that would lead to less promiscuity, and slow or stop the spread of AIDS in that population. When you aren't depressed or crapped on, then you actually care about how you live and won't be as prone to risky behavior.

Why would anyone think being gay is 'infectious'??
 
Originally posted by American
I ain't gay, I already tried talking to gay guys and jesus they're a bunch of homo fags. Not a real man among any of them. losers.

Anyone have advice for me?

Just to let you know where American is coming from, before you invest any more time in the convo.
 
bignickel said:


Just to let you know where American is coming from, before you invest any more time in the convo.


You took my quote out of context, nickelhead.

Even by itself, presented the only way my enemies can challenge me, it's still a true statement.
 
The constitution doesn't address marriage. I don't think marriage laws would fall under the Privacy like sodomy laws do.

But even then dosen't it have to comply with the constitution? I am not a government wiz at all, I acctually try to avoid how the government runs because it all seems kind of scrambled. Correct me if I am wrong but we can't have a non-secular law can we?
 
The latest headlines today "Majority desires ban on gay marriages"

Shiest.

When DC used to post things about living in a county surrounded by morons, it just seemed like paranoid rantings.

But with this, and the 51% who believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11... I don't know what else to believe. Yeesh.

This board (mostly) seems like one of the few oasis'es of sanity out there.

"Land of the Free", indeed.
 
Yeah, land of the free to infringe on people they don't agree with/about.


In our paper the other day someone was talking about how great the alliance leader was, and one of the 'good' points about him was that he opposed gay marriages. sigh. People will vote for the right wingnut discriminator just because of that one point 'in his favor'. Makes me want to scream at all the arrogant @#@&*@#@@ beep beeps out there!

Our gay tenants have the same last name, and we're all in Alberta
:p :D Nah nah! They can get married even if you don't like it!
 
I've heard similar theories "man and woman" "families" which links to the 'furthering of the species' type thinking. Marriage is only for traditional families...families that have children.
Trust me, I think I can relate:


"My lawsuit is a part of the war against evil," Boissoin claims. "I intentionally used the term ‘war’ in my letter to declare that I am no longer going to wallow in fear, apathy and political correctness but I’m declaring that I am going to do my part to actively defend my faith, share truth with passion and love regardless of the outcome, and while doing so, encourage others to stand with me.

This from a popular anti-gay activist in my own city.

His friends are defending his right to call for war against the 'gay agenda'

http://www.canadiangrassroots.ca/article.php?sid=6336


Here's more on Alberta politicians:

QUOTE]Day, a leading opponent of gay rights, was bitterly opposed to the
Supreme Court's decision to force Alberta to include homosexuals in its
human rights act. He tried to get his government to invoke the
notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court decision writing
protection of gays in the human rights code.
[/QUOTE]

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3823&view=next


We're at war, and defending 'morality'. Defending the 'natural family'

Alliance party policy defines families as only those linked by adoption,
blood or marriage.

To allow gay marriages is to allow them to be called a family, and that undermines traditional families in their point of view. The gay agenda...

The same if you allow gay foster families...'family' is not to be linked to homosexuals that way.


""The freedom for homosexuals to choose their lifestyle is there. But
when I'm asked to legislate, in some way, approval of their choice, then
I have a problem,'' he says. "How can I do this without a mandate to
alter in public policy a centuries-old definition of what a natural
family is?''

"The homosexual issue is a real source of concern because they don't
know how far it's going to go,'' Day says. "There is a concern, yet to
be determined, that it can't be stopped. These type of unknowns have
people alarmed."
t

These teachings in schools are defended by the alliance and tory members of my province:

Science lessons taught pure
creationism, noting that all evolutionists were guilty of "depravity and
sinfulness." In one reading lesson, junior high students were asked:
"The Jewish leaders were children of their father, the devil: true or
false?"

In newspaper articles at the time, Day vigorously denied the curriculum
was bigoted in any way. Fervently defending the material and the right
of his school to teach whatever it wanted, Day said he was willing to
"go to jail, if need be." "God's law is clear," an angry Day told
Alberta Report in 1984. "Standards of education are not set by
government, but by God, the Bible, the home and the school."


When elected in Red Deer North in 1986, Day made an evangelical-style
speech that made explicit his literal believe in the Bible, and that he is a Creationist.

Mr. Day was appointed minister of labour in 1992. He made Alberta's
minimum
wage the lowest in the country.

I didn't really notice our leaders until the day guy came to my door and treated me like a illiterate uneducated oaf with the way he answered my questions. I was in college at the time and taking Bio-Tech.

I wanted to be a Lab Tech. At the same time all the labs in clinics were closed and one central lab was opened in the middle of the city. If you needed a urine test, you had to go to the doc's office first, and then to the lab, and then back to the doc's office.

The lack of job opportunities had me concerned. So when day came to my door and asked me if I had any questions I started to say

"I have a question about job opportunities....

He interrupted and said (in a tone that was like offering a kid a candy cane at christmas) "Have you tried Superstore?"

The only work you get there is part-time and that low minimum wage he set for the province.

I was so disgusted that he had interrupted me and thought that I was worthy of such a job that you really couldn't build a future on.

So I said "Oh there's a future" and closed the door. The guy makes snap and stereotypical judgements before he even knows someone. I look young for my age, but sheesh, let me finish the question before you say something so idiotic!

So yeah, marriage is for their definition of 'family' only. You can read what they said about gay parents being foster parents, and other such topics
http://www.google.ca/custom?q=cache...ed+deer+advocate,+gay+marriage&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[
""Homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured by counselling."
He has said homosexuality is "not condoned by God'' and maintains being
gay is a matter of choice.
--Calgary Herald, April 9, 1998
."


These are the people who now make up the Alliance party. They are our federal opposition party. They also run Alberta. Albertans vote for them and back them (except ones like me, but I'm clearly a minority...I never vote for them, and they always win).

It's sick.
 
American said:


We don't want to catch gay, or give it to our kids.

I think that if someone is actually concerned about "catching gay", it's probably because they already have tendencies in that direction that they are trying to suppress.

American, is there something you want to tell us?
 
KelvinG said:


I think that if someone is actually concerned about "catching gay", it's probably because they already have tendencies in that direction that they are trying to suppress.
Exactly, the same goes for those who feel it is a "lifestyle" or "personal choice". They must have had a tough time "choosing" to be straight.
 
Well nobody should ever screw, period, unless they're trying to act depraved for some twisted reason. I'll never understand it. Babies can be made in a lab now, and cut neatly out of the stomach after they're growed enough. (..... no need to stretch that area out. Got to keep your figure just to get a job theses days.)
 
Back
Top Bottom