Greased_Lightning Posted June 7, 2006 Report Posted June 7, 2006 The amendment to ban gay marriage failed in a senate tally 49-48. For this to proceed, they needed a 2/3 favorable vote. What are everyone's thoughts on the subject? My view is that this kind of thing has no business being in the Cons!@#$%^&*ution. I do not agree with gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle, but I disagree with putting it in there. I think this should be left to the states to decide, not to the federal government. Most of the states (45 I think?) have state cons!@#$%^&*ution amendments or statutes or have them coming up for vote that restrict or ban gay marriage. I've liked John McCain for a long time because I think he's more of a moderate who doesn't just toe the party line. The fact that he didn't support this amendment makes me respect him even more. McCain for President in 2008!!!! (as long as the !@#$%^&* extreme evangelical conservatives pull their heads out of their !@#$%^&*es)
SeVeR Posted June 7, 2006 Report Posted June 7, 2006 I agree Greased, although i think what some people want is the definition of the word changed for when two gay people "marry". I wouldn't have any complaints if they invented a new word for when gay people marry as long as they had most/all of the same rights a heterosexual couple has. These people just want something to hate that isn't marriage. They see marriage as tainted otherwise especially as its in the eyes of God... etc.
Tex Posted June 8, 2006 Report Posted June 8, 2006 Cons!@#$%^&*uional Amendments are never good. (Besides the Bill of Rights)It should be left up to the states, but then again... You will have states being all gays... and then people will be like "Yea, go live in you God !@#$%^&* !@#$%^&*" Ha!
SeVeR Posted June 8, 2006 Report Posted June 8, 2006 A University run by a Christian group has already told a gay man to "go to San Francisco" and expelled him from the university. I don't think you can avoid it.
Tex Posted June 9, 2006 Report Posted June 9, 2006 Maybe they should go through the 10 Commandments and figure out which ones they have broken in the past week. Then, and only then, may they p!@#$%^&* judgement. ( They are still not suppose to though, god is suppose to. You're suppose to accept people! )
AstroProdigy Posted June 9, 2006 Report Posted June 9, 2006 This is how the Republicans can change the subject from their horrible economic and foreign relations policies and their m!@#$%^&* corruption. Attack the gays!
SeVeR Posted June 9, 2006 Report Posted June 9, 2006 The republicans always appealed to two key groups: Patriots and Christians. Wars, Defense, Flag-Waving - for the patriots. Anti-gay, pro-life, being a Christian, , talking about good&evil all the time - for the Christians.
»i88gerbils Posted June 9, 2006 Report Posted June 9, 2006 SeveR, you're incorrect about the Republican party. The Republican party is composed of two parties. There are the social conservatives who believe in upholding a strict set of values and there are economic libertarians that support the conservative approach to business. A friend of mine theorizes that the Libertarian party will gain significant gains if the latter half of the Republican party ever splits. Now interestingly, yet derailing, the Democratic party has its own circles such as blind hypocrites like Senator Hilary Clinton whose approach is similar to the social conservatives of the Republican party. Your definition of patriotism is as flawed as Mecbot's was years ago. Only those U.S. citizens who hold apathy towards political, social, and economic change are unpatriotic and dare I use the word Unamerican (HUAC ). Okay, back to your discussion.
SeVeR Posted June 9, 2006 Report Posted June 9, 2006 I agree with you about the republican split but all republicans still benefit in the same way. I believe Bush is an economic libertarian who uses the patriots and christians to his advantage through mentioning God, good&evil, and calling himself a Christian. He has to keep those voters and does it by being a republican. The libertarians would not gain from a split, they might convince a few democrats to join/vote but they'd lose a large chunk of their voters. They'd have to convince as many Democrats to join their party as they lose to the "social conservative party". I actually agree that the Clintons are very similar to the Bushes. I might even theorise that we have a democratically-agreeable aristocracy going on in America. If Hilary ever becomes president (i really hope she doesn't) then that'd be two bushes and two clintons for the last four presidents. Your definition of patriotism is as flawed as Mecbot's was years ago. Only those U.S. citizens who hold apathy towards political, social, and economic change are unpatriotic and dare I use the word Unamerican (HUAC ). I think you give them too much credit. There are alot of people in America who will vote on very shallow principles. You may call almost every American a patriot by that definition, but i'm only referring to the people who stick flags on their houses, support almost any war (usually whilst not knowing where the country is on a map) and are quite xenophbic. There are plenty of them and Bushes speeches usually accomodate them quite well (aswell as slipping in the words "God" and "fighting evil" for the Christians). I do believe everything is relative so i will agree with your definition of patriotism and change my definition to "extreme patriotism".
Tex Posted June 10, 2006 Report Posted June 10, 2006 I read that 2 Democracts and 47 republicans were FOR the gay marriage amendment, while 40 Democrats were against it. Interesting... just thought I'd share.
Aileron Posted June 16, 2006 Report Posted June 16, 2006 SeVeR, I believe in tolerating the opinions of others, but that comment goes too far. If you had any knowledge on the subject you would know that the Vatican has opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning and that the legacy of the late Pope John Paul II has been one of peace. That comment simply amounts to libelous religious bigotry. And you have it wrong, the top four political issue for Catholics in the US, in order of decreasing importance are: Abortion, Income Distribution, Peace, Gay Marriage Admittingly, you wrote "Christians", and other denominations do have other priorites. Though the fact that Rebuplicans are using this to rally their support goes without contest...I find it amusing that the democrats make that "accusation", because if you think about it, that's how democracy is supposed to work.
SeVeR Posted June 16, 2006 Report Posted June 16, 2006 I was referring to Christians. I think Catholics would probably listen more to the Pope than to Bush. Christianity is the dominant religion by quite a long way in the US. It is hard to "nail down" exactly how many are Christians and how many are Catholics but there is certainly alot of Jesus talk in the US (compared to the UK).
Pixel3 Posted June 17, 2006 Report Posted June 17, 2006 I myself have no problem with "Gays", They are humans like us, So they have the right to be "Gay", I myself is not gay because i have a girlfriend,And thats the way its gonna stay,
X`terrania Posted June 22, 2006 Report Posted June 22, 2006 I fully support gay marriage. I'm happy for them all!
PullTripSquid Posted February 6, 2007 Report Posted February 6, 2007 When im trying to make a !@#$%^&* go down, all i do is think of a gay nasty !@#$%^&*gots hairy butt, but this seems to do the opposite and prolongs my !@#$%^&*...Im not gay but what could this mean?
SeVeR Posted February 6, 2007 Report Posted February 6, 2007 It means you want animal sex with a horse
Shlazzer Posted April 3, 2007 Report Posted April 3, 2007 Seriously, what the !@#$%^&*? They can help being gay. They were born liking other men, just like I was born liking females. They can't help being who they are. If two people want to spend the rest of their life together, why not just let them? Why make such a big !@#$%^&*ing deal about it>
NBVegita Posted April 3, 2007 Report Posted April 3, 2007 No one is telling them they can't spend the rest of their lives together.
Shlazzer Posted April 3, 2007 Report Posted April 3, 2007 Fair enough. Married couples have many benefits. I won't go into them, mainly because I'm 15 and know very little of marriage. I just know that there's benefits (please tell me if I'm confused about this). Now, if the sacred do!@#$%^&*ents that made the United States state that 'All men are created equal', why deny homosexuals the access to those same benefits as any heterosexual couple?
NBVegita Posted April 3, 2007 Report Posted April 3, 2007 The only benefits you gain from marriage is for tax purposes. And they are neglegable if both parties are working.
Aileron Posted April 3, 2007 Report Posted April 3, 2007 Right now the Christian population of the US is pretty much split 50/50, 50% Catholics and 50% other denominations. Right now the Catholic population is increasing very quickly due to illegal immigrants from Latin America. I've just realised something though. If somebody lived outside the US and has had to judge Americans by American television, that person would come to the conclusion that we are morons, because all of our actors and journalists are idiots, and live in communities that are filled with wannabe actors who are even dumber than they are. The thing is most intelligent Americans go into science and engineering and recieve NO fame whatsoever. Point being, don't judge us by how we appear on TV. The big issue I keep hearing too much about is race and culture actually. Usually its just some hyped up difference between groups of different races who in reality have the same culture because they have been in the US so long that they have an American culture, so they go to ridiculous lengths to try to act otherwise. As for the Catholic stance on homosexuality, yes its wrong, but it isn't much of a priority. I mean the big ones are world hunger, disease, poverty, violence and in the US abortion. So much so that a politician can be openly gay, but if he had a plan to undo Roe vs. Wade, he'd get the Catholic stamp of approval, and if he actually pulled it off, he would be canonized. That's why the Catholic church abadoned Kerry. He had everything going for him, except that he was pro-"choice". Abortion is THE most imporant issue for Catholics in the United States. So much so that everything else doesn't matter. Homosexuality is a insignificant problem, less important that a shortage of vocations in the US.
Falcoknight Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 Homosexuality is a insignificant problem,I would daresay that homosexuality is not anything that resembles a "problem" so much as those that are view others` sexual preferences, religious beliefs, or race as a "problem." If it was an error on your part, or an error on my part in interpretation, I sincerely apologize. Also.. I'm a little confused as to where/why this began to lead into a discussion about the differences between Catholics and other denominations of the Christian faith, let us get back on to gay marriage, just that. I, personally, have no problem with gay marriage at all. I've yet to see any evidence that states that someone who is homosexual is anything but human, and, until I see such evidence, I will support their right to get married just as I would support the right of any heterosexual male or female to get married.
Wild Luck Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 Seriously, what the !@#$%^&*? They can help being gay. They were born liking other men, just like I was born liking females. They can't help being who they are. If two people want to spend the rest of their life together, why not just let them? Why make such a big !@#$%^&*ing deal about it>Only 1-10% of all gay pplz are born gay
AstroProdigy Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 Did you pull this statistic out of your !@#$%^&* or a conservative mouthpiece that also says evolution has no evidence?
Recommended Posts