It's official: Bush supports anti-gay marriage amendment

[Dave Markell]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html

We knew it was coming, of course. Should bring out voters on both sides of this issue in large numbers. This is going to be an interesting election.

[awdougherty]

Obviously this is no secret, but isn't this kind of a useless statement from Bush since Congress has to actually do all of this? And then it has to go to the states? Seems like the same thing as me stating I'm for a Constitutional Amendment to make every other Friday "Pizza Day!"

[XPav]

Its called "playing to the conservative base".

[Derek Meister]

I'd like to announce that I've now changed my potential presidential vote to awdoughty in '04.

A vote for AWD is a vote for PIZZA!

[awdougherty]

Good point. I hope the conservative base realizes there are better ways Bush could appeal to them (isn't part of the conservative base states' rights?), like not balloning the deficit to record numbers and so on.

I wish politics didn't impact me so that my boredom with the pandering and positioning could reach its full potential.

[XPav]

The more I think about this, I get more and more pissed at this FMA and the religious right in general.

We can't pass the Equal Rights Amendment, yet 30 years later, we've got some fucking morons trying to put discriminatory language into the Constitution.

[Midnight Son]

Pander pander pander! Constitutional amendment must by passed by two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress. Three-fourths of states in the union then have 7 years to approve or reject it.

Clearly there are no more vital, more timely, more important issues this nation faces!

[Jason McCullough]

It's an appeal to evangelicals. They don't give a shit about tax cuts or the budget.

Bush called for a civil debate on the controversial issue.

"We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."


Can he say this shit with a straight face?

[Rywill]

ARRRRGGGGHHHH is it November yet?

[awdougherty]

I know I can't read it with a straight face.

And yes, a vote for me is a vote for pizza. I also promise a constitutional amendment requiring lampshades for all lamps. I hate looking into a bare bulb and getting those spots like when you accidentally look at the sun. My campaign slogan is "Leave no lampshade behind!!!" Now unfortunately, it's up to the states to figure out how to shoulder the 12 billion that program will cost. Also, New Jersey was in cahoots with 9/11, time to invade.

[Woolen Horde]

Actually, 7 years to approve thing isn't exactly true.

The 27th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1789. It was finally ratified in 1992.

Certain amendments have time limits built into them (like Prohibition), but if it's not stated in the amendment itself, it's open-ended

[Midnight Son]

It's now officially 7 years.

[Dirt]

Still not going to vote for him.

[Squirrel Killer]

It's now officially 7 years.

My understanding is that there's no "official" time limit, but seven years has been a customary deadline. From the House of Representatives site (www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amendnotrat.html):

Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven years from the time of the submission to the States. The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act is a political question to be determined by the Congress.

That is to say, the USSC hasn't mandated a limit, and Congress places the limit on an amendment itself, but it isn't required to do so.

[Bob Violence]

The seven year deadline is basically just a default. It can be extended by Congress (as in the case of the ERA, which was passed by Congress in '72, set to expire in '79, and extended to '82) so it's kind of meaningless.

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.jerkcity.com/jerkcity431.gif

The last panel is my new official opinion on the entire gay marriage debate.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, and I'd recommend reading Andrew Sullivan's weblog; he's TOTALLY FREAKING OUT that Bush is a fucker. Cognitive dissonance has limits, apparently.

[quatoria]

So, when is Philomath due to hop in and post that this is just fine, gays don't need to get married, don't need clear rights of inheritence, don't need powers of attorney over their spouses, don't need the right to visit them in a hospital, don't need the right to taker care of or adopt children, don't need benefits extended under pension plans or health insurance to their spouses, etc, etc, etc. What they REALLY need is to be able to have sex in parks. Right, Philomath? That's the burning issue currently consuming the gay world, right? NOT marriage? Isn't that what you told us?

Maybe you should inform the Log Cabin Republicans, Philomath, because they don't seem to be in the same public-fucking park as you.

http://www.lcr.org/press/20040224.asp

“Today the President has embraced an amendment that is the product of the radical right. They have mastered the art of gay-bashing after decades of practice. Log Cabin bases our opposition to this anti-family amendment on the principles of American freedom outlined in our Constitution. History will not look back kindly on this assault of our Constitution,” continued Guerriero.

I guess they didn't get the memo, huh, Philomath?

[Bob Cherub]

Sheesh now you resort to insulting Philomath in a thread he's not even in? You guys are rather pathetic.

And I agree, should be an interesting "debate" on gay marriage. Especially since even the most liberal state in the union, California, approved a measure stating that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. And it was 66%.

Guess most people agree with the President on this one. Should be fun if it's made a big deal and it crashes in your face.

[extarbags]

Sheesh now you resort to insulting Philomath in a thread he's not even in? You guys are rather pathetic.

And I agree, should be an interesting "debate" on gay marriage. Especially since even the most liberal state in the union, California, approved a measure stating that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. And it was 66%.

Guess most people agree with the President on this one. Should be fun if it's made a big deal and it crashes in your face.

Yeah, I guess most people do. If by "most," you mean 47%, which is significantly less than what is required to pass an amendment. Nice try.

PS: I predict that in the 2008 Democratic Iowa Caucus, Barack Obama will win, followed by John Edwards, with Hillary Clinton in third place.

[quatoria]

Sheesh now you resort to insulting Philomath in a thread he's not even in? You guys are rather pathetic.

I guess I can take comfort in the fact that I'm (or should that be we? I didn't realize I was an "us guys" until now) not starting threads for the specific purpose of insulting someone, like, say, this one.

http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8742

[Qenan]

Bush has obviously decided this is an election where turning out his base is more important than appealing to the broad middle, so he's offering red meat to the pit bulls...

[Mark Asher]

Bush is also better off if he can frame the debate with social issues rather than economic ones. The Democrats should let this one go and fight it at the State level.

[Jobe]

I guess I can take comfort in the fact that I'm (or should that be we? I didn't realize I was an "us guys" until now) not starting threads for the specific purpose of insulting someone, like, say, this one.

http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8742

Yeah, god forbid he insult Midnight Son when he could be insulting people of much higher quality.

[XPav]

I wonder what Dick Cheney's daughter thinks about this?

[Midnight Son]

On a side note, I would insult Jobe but since he wouldn't understand it, why bother?

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4351828/

Reagan's daughter in favor of gay marriage.

[Sharpe]

Oh, and I'd recommend reading Andrew Sullivan's weblog; he's TOTALLY FREAKING OUT that Bush is a fucker. Cognitive dissonance has limits, apparently.

He's getting some completely great e-mail too. He posted some and heres just a classic example:

"I can feel your depression through the computer monitor, but if it makes you feel any better, I've been married to my wife for 26 years, and let me tell you something, you ain't missing a goddamn thing."

I laughed so hard I nearly choked on my chocolate chip cookie dough.

Apropos of nothing, its still DAMN funny.

linky:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

Dan

[Ben Sones]

Of course this thing is entirely a political move. Lots of people would support a gay marriage ban, but not nearly enough to pass a Constitutional amendment, and Bush probably knows that. Still, I hope it backfires on him. And it's fucking surreal to watch the Republicans champion this amendment while the Democrats bitch about states' rights.

[Duality]

Seems like the same thing as me stating I'm for a Constitutional Amendment to make every other Friday "Pizza Day!"
I am interested in your position on this subject and would like to learn more through a free, informative brochure.

And yes, a vote for me is a vote for pizza. I also promise a constitutional amendment requiring lampshades for all lamps. I hate looking into a bare bulb and getting those spots like when you accidentally look at the sun. My campaign slogan is "Leave no lampshade behind!!!" Now unfortunately, it's up to the states to figure out how to shoulder the 12 billion that program will cost. Also, New Jersey was in cahoots with 9/11, time to invad
Fast delivery!

[awdougherty]

I would love to send you a free informative brochure, but my political funds are a little low. I will have my political website up soon (caution: massive porn pop-ups). If I'm seriously going to go after the White House, I'll need to be able to match Bush's campaign spending to even have a shot. So today I officially launch my internet campaign to raise $150 million. I will accept contributions from the following special interests: Pizzaria Uno, Papa John's, and Lombardi's Pizza in Little Italy, New York City.

The main thing is this amendment has absolutely no chance of ever seeing the light of day given the process needed for that to be passed. It's bullshit smokescreens to even state it that way, and I think most people will be able to see that.

And my understanding is that his position would still allow the possibility of civil unions, so it makes it even more worthless in a way. And of course, if we end up going the Civil Union path, can we at least all get a free T-shirt that reads "USA!! Don't have the balls to call a spade a spade." At least we could finally get rid of the ones that have the American flag on it and read "These colors don't run."

[Ben Sones]

The interesting thing about this proposed amendment is that it's completely unlike any other existing amendment (save Prohibition, which was repealed) in one important way--it doesn't propose to protect citizens' liberty, but rather to restrict their actions. No other amendment does that. Frankly I'd oppose it based on that alone--even if I opposed gay marriage (which I don't)--because that's not what the Constitution is for.

[awdougherty]

Very good point. I hadn't thought about it in that specific context, but I wholeheartedly agree.

[Jason McCullough]

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried

No idea how someone could oppose what's going on in that set of pictures.

[Anaxagoras]

It's not too hard to imagine opposition to that. How does the Devil's Dictionary definition of puritanism go? Lessee:

puritanism: the haunting suspicion that someone, somewhere, is happy.

[awdougherty]

Those pictures are just downright obscene!!! I guess happiness falls outside of that traditional thing Bush keeps referring to.

But more importantly, where are the Lesbians I keep reading about in the Penthouse letters? The ones in those pictures didn't look like Carmen Electra and Pamela Anderson making out.

I'm confused...

[Ben Sones]

No idea how someone could oppose what's going on in that set of pictures.

I fully support the right to wear doileys and bad upholstery on one's head.

[Jason McCullough]

The other, more tastefully dressed pictures.

[Oppressor]

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried

No idea how someone could oppose what's going on in that set of pictures.

Well I can! One should simply *never* mix Fuscia and Green!

[Philomath]

So, when is Philomath due to hop in and post that this is just fine, gays don't need to get married, don't need clear rights of inheritence, don't need powers of attorney over their spouses, don't need the right to visit them in a hospital, don't need the right to taker care of or adopt children, don't need benefits extended under pension plans or health insurance to their spouses, etc, etc, etc.

That's not what I think or said, but keep making stuff up when you can't refute what I've said. I'm not masochistic, so I'm for the rights you mentioned (other than using the term "marriage"), and for the states that have actively been extending those rights.

What they REALLY need is to be able to have sex in parks. Right, Philomath? That's the burning issue currently consuming the gay world, right? NOT marriage? Isn't that what you told us?

Well, you're being silly now. Admittedly, I'm more in the "go out and live life to the fullest" gay camp than the "political" gay camp, so I don't really get the politically charged meaning of using the word marriage or not, and most of my gay friends have no interest at all in the concept. People want to fight for it? I'm happy that makes them happy, or they feel it's important to them. I'm not sure they're achieving anything that means anything to most gays, and I'm not surprised that Christians want to give special recognition to male-female couplings. I think a lot of people are jumping on the bandwagon on something they probably don't really care at all about, except it gives them another happy reason to bash Christians.

[Jason McCullough]

Philo, I've heard the phrase "full equality before the law" bandied about.

Looks like the amendment is dead on arrival. DU dug up 34 hard votes against it already.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1163292

Have to say I'm really happy to see McCain's name on there.

[Anaxagoras]

That's not what I think or said, but keep making stuff up when you can't refute what I've said.
You're refuted on a pretty regular basis, actually. It's just bonus points to try and guess what whacky shit you'll come up with. Looks like quatoria doesn't get the bonus points for this round. So sorry, quatoria. Better luck next round!

[Philomath]

That's not what I think or said, but keep making stuff up when you can't refute what I've said.
You're refuted on a pretty regular basis, actually. It's just bonus points to try and guess what whacky shit you'll come up with. Looks like quatoria doesn't get the bonus points for this round. So sorry, quatoria. Better luck next round!

Keep living in la-la land.

[Dirt]

[double post]

[Dirt]

The advocation of gay marriages on this board borders almost on the fanatic.

"It's about equlity and they're happy and if it makes people happy, it can't be wrong, so why don't you religious, puritanical conservatives just shut your stupid bigot mouths up?!"

You guys are giving PETA a run for their money.

[Anders Hallin]

That sure was a quick delete. You'd almost think that on second thought, equalling marital bliss and thug sadism wasn't such a good idea after all :D

[Dirt]

That sure was a quick delete. You'd almost think that on second thought, equalling marital bliss and thug sadism wasn't such a good idea after all :D

Actually, I was rethinking my response.

[Anders Hallin]

The advocation of gay marriages on this board borders almost on the fanatic.

"It's about equlity and they're happy and if it makes people happy, it can't be wrong, so why don't you religious, puritanical conservatives just shut your stupid bigot mouths up?!"

You guys are giving PETA a run for their money.
I thought conservatices were keen on principled stands, and loathing any kind of moral relativism. They should be happy we're acting so much like they pretend to.
We just can't seem to see anything wrong with gay marriage, which is quite remarkable, I must say.

[Philomath]

I thought conservatices were keen on principled stands, and loathing any kind of moral relativism.

You may not understand the words. Maybe you disagree with large majority of Americans who don't agree with gay marriage, but their stand is certainly principled and shows that they don't believe in moral relativism. They, and "they" are the large majority of Americans, not just Rebublicans or people who would call themselves conservative, believe in their principles so strongly they're being obstinate.

[Anders Hallin]

I meant Dirt's complaint about the Qt3 "general" unwavering support for gay marriage. See, here we are making a principled stand, not wavering an inch, and still you complain!

[Dirt]

Is it just me or did Philomath agree with Anders Hallin?

Oh, nevermind.

[Jason McCullough]

I thought conservatices were keen on principled stands, and loathing any kind of moral relativism.

You may not understand the words. Maybe you disagree with large majority of Americans who don't agree with gay marriage, but their stand is certainly principled and shows that they don't believe in moral relativism. They, and "they" are the large majority of Americans, not just Rebublicans or people who would call themselves conservative, believe in their principles so strongly they're being obstinate.

What the hell does moral relativism mean in this context, anyway? "I'm right and you're wrong?"

[Anders Hallin]

Personally, of course, I'm a big fan of moral relativism.

[Anaxagoras]

"It's about equlity and they're happy and if it makes people happy, it can't be wrong, so why don't you religious, puritanical conservatives just shut your stupid bigot mouths up?!"


Wow... all these words, and that's the only argument you get out of this? Confucius would be saddened by your lack of wisdom. I know I am.

[Tom McNamara]

Bush's strategy smacks to me of a tactic designed to quickly make a legislative move, and an extremely decisive one, before there's been enough chance for debate. Meaning, if someone didn't take a strong stance in the negative right off the bat, the proposal to allow gay marriage may gradually be seen as Not That Big of a Problem, Really and eventually produce nothing more than a shrug or a growl of irritation--but not political action. Get people polarized as fast as you can, based on their barely-formed notions, rather than let them sit down and really think about the idea for themselves.

It doesn't surprise me at all that most of California is against gay marriage, according to this poll. There was a time when racial integration, slavery abolition, and women's suffrage were similarly distasteful.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Considering how slim the chance of getting the amendment through Congress, the President's open call for an amendment is especially cynical. Neither Frist nor DeLay have the appetite for this fight right now, so the possibility of any Congressional vote on this before November is extremely unlikely. A quick legislative move is a pipe dream.

Some Congressional leaders have also said they want to work this through the courts - the very courts that President Bush said will only screw this up.

So, beyond trying to mobilize the religious right, which did not turn out in great numbers in 2000, or peel off those social conservative Democrats, I can't see much practicality behind the call for an amendment.

Troy

[Dirt]

"It's about equlity and they're happy and if it makes people happy, it can't be wrong, so why don't you religious, puritanical conservatives just shut your stupid bigot mouths up?!"


Wow... all these words, and that's the only argument you get out of this? Confucius would be saddened by your lack of wisdom. I know I am.

Anaxagoras, you don't know jack about Chinese thought or thinking. Your very sentence in regards to Chinese having very little concern with metaphysics is a loud display of your Western Judeo-Christian bias. All you've done is spew your the dogma you've read from books, but you've shown no true knowledge of how that thought influences Chinese thinking and how Chinese culture has interpreted the philosophies.

I could be wrong, for all I know, you ARE Chinese.

[Anaxagoras]

Anaxagoras, you don't know jack about Chinese thought or thinking. Your very sentence in regards to Chinese having very little concern with metaphysics is a loud display of your Western Judeo-Christian bias.

Blow it out your ass. I was raised among Chinese Americans and I've studied their philosophy, as well as some Japanese thought. (I admit, I'm almost completely ignorant about Korean thought) You're absolutely right..... the very concept of "metaphysics" is a Western one. However, I'm speaking (mostly) to Westerners here, so it makes sense to use their language, doesn't it? Translating cultural ideas across cultures is always hazardous, but you have to use the tools at your disposal.... even if the tools are inadequate.

[bago]

You'd wonder why Rove would let this happen. He's just lost a chunk of the middle, and given how tight the last election was, he just lost 2004 with this pander.

[Mark Asher]

You'd wonder why Rove would let this happen. He's just lost a chunk of the middle, and given how tight the last election was, he just lost 2004 with this pander.

They must have polling data that shows this is a good move.

[XPav]

They're scared of Judge Roy Moore running for President and need the conservative cred badly.

[Bub, Andrew]

They're scared of Judge Roy Moore running for President and need the conservative cred badly.

Yeah, I've heard this too, the Religious Right expressed "disappointment" that Bush hadn't "taken a stronger stand on this issue" and at the same time started talking about Moore as an Independant candidate.

[Ben Sones]

The advocation of gay marriages on this board borders almost on the fanatic.

"It's about equlity and they're happy and if it makes people happy, it can't be wrong, so why don't you religious, puritanical conservatives just shut your stupid bigot mouths up?!"

You guys are giving PETA a run for their money.

Er, okay. I don't really see how this has anything to do with PETA, but whatever. If you want to make analogies, I'd argue that you are more on the PETA side of the equation, since you are the one who wants to put all sorts of restrictions on people. But it's not a good analogy either way.

As far as the "if it makes people happy, it can't be wrong," that's actually not too far from how I feel. I can't see how gay marriage has any impact on your life--or on anyone's life, unless they are gay--so I have trouble understanding why you are so strongly opposed to it.

[Dirt]

It was a reference to their (sometime) fanaticism. There are liberal fanatics as well as conservative fanatics.

Gays say that marriage can be between 2 people of the same gender. Traditionally and historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman. This is something I have always believed to be true and continue to do so. Their belief has no direct impact in how I live my life but it does have an impact on my beliefs and the structure by which I live my life. That is all. Pretty simple.

I'm not against civil unions, two people who love each other and commit their lives to each other should be accorded all legal rights regardless of whether it's 1 man and 1 woman or 2 people of the same gender.

However, do gays care about my views on marriage and the respect in which I hold it? Of course not. They want to be married so that they can be happy, not so I can be happy. They don't care that they are destroying the uniqueness of the bond that I hope to one day share with someone that I love. They are just as selfish in the pursuit of their own happiness, their own beliefs as I am in mine.

I'm done.

[extarbags]

It was a reference to their (sometime) fanaticism. There are liberal fanatics as well as conservative fanatics.

Gays say that marriage can be between 2 people of the same gender. Traditionally and historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman. This is something I have always believed to be true and continue to do so. Their belief has no direct impact in how I live my life but it does have an impact on my beliefs and the structure by which I live my life. That is all. Pretty simple.

And you think it's just that people should be limited in the way they actually do live their lives just to be more consistent with your beliefs? How about this, since it's such a hot topic: if I believe that Jews are evil and should be treated as second-class citizens, should that be the case because even though the fact that Jews are treated the same as everyone else doesn't affect me in the slightest, it runs contrary to my beliefs?

[extarbags]

However, do gays care about my views on marriage and the respect in which I hold it? Of course not. They want to be married so that they can be happy, not so I can be happy. They don't care that they are destroying the uniqueness of the bond that I hope to one day share with someone that I love. They are just as selfish in the pursuit of their own happiness, their own beliefs as I am in mine.


Follow up question: are you fucking insane? Gays are selfish for wanting the same rights you have because they aren't thinking specifically of the people who want to deny them those rights when they get married? They're selfish because they want the same rights you have, and they ignore the fact that if they get them it's going to destroy the fact that those rights are currently unique to you and your subclass of people?

Are... are you completely insane?

[Dirt]

It was a reference to their (sometime) fanaticism. There are liberal fanatics as well as conservative fanatics.

Gays say that marriage can be between 2 people of the same gender. Traditionally and historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman. This is something I have always believed to be true and continue to do so. Their belief has no direct impact in how I live my life but it does have an impact on my beliefs and the structure by which I live my life. That is all. Pretty simple.

And you think it's just that people should be limited in the way they actually do live their lives just to be more consistent with your beliefs? How about this, since it's such a hot topic: if I believe that Jews are evil and should be treated as second-class citizens, should that be the case because even though the fact that Jews are treated the same as everyone else doesn't affect me in the slightest, it runs contrary to my beliefs?

What I don't get is: Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Doesn't that mean he was persecuted by his own people? I don't understand the problem there.

[extarbags]

It was a reference to their (sometime) fanaticism. There are liberal fanatics as well as conservative fanatics.

Gays say that marriage can be between 2 people of the same gender. Traditionally and historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman. This is something I have always believed to be true and continue to do so. Their belief has no direct impact in how I live my life but it does have an impact on my beliefs and the structure by which I live my life. That is all. Pretty simple.

And you think it's just that people should be limited in the way they actually do live their lives just to be more consistent with your beliefs? How about this, since it's such a hot topic: if I believe that Jews are evil and should be treated as second-class citizens, should that be the case because even though the fact that Jews are treated the same as everyone else doesn't affect me in the slightest, it runs contrary to my beliefs?

What I don't get is: Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Doesn't that mean he was persecuted by his own people? I don't understand the problem there.

I think you're confused as to which thread this is. I win!

[Ben Sones]

However, do gays care about my views on marriage and the respect in which I hold it? Of course not. They want to be married so that they can be happy, not so I can be happy. They don't care that they are destroying the uniqueness of the bond that I hope to one day share with someone that I love. They are just as selfish in the pursuit of their own happiness, their own beliefs as I am in mine.



I don't see how. It seems to me that you want to place fundamental restrictions on how gays live their lives, while gays just want to do something that doesn't have any practical effect on your life one way or the other aside from the fact that you don't like it. That seems like a poor reason to make something illegal. And I think the whole "uniqueness of marriage" complaint is pretty weak. No offense, but how is that any different than a spoiled kid complaining that his toy is less cool because now all the other kids have one, too? What gives you exclusive rights to the marriage bond?

[steve]

Traditionally and historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
Traditionally and historically people owned slaves and treated women as second-class citizens. Maybe neither of those things have any direct impact on you, but you have to acknowledge that society changes.

They don't care that they are destroying the uniqueness of the bond that I hope to one day share with someone that I love. They are just as selfish in the pursuit of their own happiness, their own beliefs as I am in mine.
How is something that nearly every single human being could, theoretically, take part in, and billions have done before, unique? Even if you say, "Our love is unique," that doesn't explain how someone else being able to get married makes it any less unique. I just can't see the logic at all.

[Euri]

Dirt,

Well, welcome to the club that has brought about more human suffering than almost any other cause in our entire history.

You have immense resource available to you to examine the past. Yet, you have chosen not to do this, instead adopting the same attitudes and beliefs that every tyrant in human history has done. We ask for love, you give us hate. We ask for freedom, you give us exclusion. You're beliefs are everything that is fundamentally wrong with humanity. What you believe is directly related to every horrible atrocity that has ever been commited, ever. Now, you aren't out subjugating the masses. You aren't raping, pillaging, and destroying.

But you aren't doing anything to prevent such things from happening. You have turned your bigoted, selfish eye from the plight of people that need help. You have chosen to hold your own tired views above the greater good of all humanity. You have paraded rhetoric used by fascists hatemongers.

I wonder what that makes you.


I can't imagine that it's anything good.

[extarbags]

I wonder what that makes you.

A Confucianist!

[Euri]

I wonder what that makes you.

A Confucianist!


Well slap my ass and call me sally!

[Dirt]

Dirt,

Well, welcome to the club that has brought about more human suffering than almost any other cause in our entire history.

You have immense resource available to you to examine the past. Yet, you have chosen not to do this, instead adopting the same attitudes and beliefs that every tyrant in human history has done. We ask for love, you give us hate. We ask for freedom, you give us exclusion. You're beliefs are everything that is fundamentally wrong with humanity. What you believe is directly related to every horrible atrocity that has ever been commited, ever. Now, you aren't out subjugating the masses. You aren't raping, pillaging, and destroying.

But you aren't doing anything to prevent such things from happening. You have turned your bigoted, selfish eye from the plight of people that need help. You have chosen to hold your own tired views above the greater good of all humanity. You have paraded rhetoric used by fascists hatemongers.

I wonder what that makes you.


I can't imagine that it's anything good.

Greater good of humanity? I think the most common reason given to me for allowing gay marriages is that the legalization of it has no detrimental effects on my way life and the world, but I've never heard that it would actually elevate it. Do tell. Do tell.

You're asking for everything based upon your rules instead of the rules of society. Don't single me out to mock and ridicule with your personal prejudices; you, along with the people on this board seems to ignore the very fact that the majority of the people in the USA are pro civil union (equal legal rights) and pro marriage only between 1 man and 1 woman. If I am a bigot for agreeing with the majority of American society, so be it.

Tell me Euri, if you and your partner are given all the legal benefits of being married, why do you still need to be married? What does that do for you? Does that somehow validate your relationship? Your existence? Without marriage, are you less of a person? What I'm really trying to understand is: How does marriage make you equal and/or how does not having it make you less so?

[Dirt]

I wonder what that makes you.

A Confucianist!

See, now you're mocking me (and Confucianism) through Anaxagora's 'tools' of representation.

[quatoria]

Will that make your father accept you more?

You unbelievable fucking asshole. In the account of his marriage, the one you read and commented on, Dirt, Euri mentioned that his father DIED not long after the one act of acceptance he showed his son. What kind of an asshole would throw something like that in his face? His father is fucking dead, you insensitive shitheel. Jesus. Up until now, this debate hasn't been personal, but you know what? This really makes me sick.

[Dirt]

Will that make your father accept you more?

You unbelievable fucking asshole. In the account of his marriage, the one you read and commented on, Dirt, Euri mentioned that his father DIED not long after the one act of acceptance he showed his son. What kind of an asshole would throw something like that in his face? His father is fucking dead, you insensitive shitheel. Jesus. Up until now, this debate hasn't been personal, but you know what? This really makes me sick.

I hadn't read that far yet. If you notice, I use 'Will', not 'Would'. I realized it later and changed it. I guess now both you and I have immortalized it.

Euri, you have my apologies.

[Euri]

Read next post:

[Euri]

Apology accepted.

What I'm really trying to understand is: How does marriage make you equal and/or how does not having it make you less so?

Are you trying to make my head explode? I've posted about 20 of the 1400 rights that married people enjoy.

I am not out for societal acceptance. I've lived without it this long, and I don't really care if I garner it in the future. Those who love me accept me no matter what.

I am not out for homosexuality to be "equal" to heterosexuality. It's different, that's for sure, and I'm not sure how I could equate them logically.

However, the fact that you seem to miss is very simple, and central to all of this:


We are a country that has dedicated itself to equality for all. If you take every marriage right, wrap it up in a civil term, and give it to me... fine. It's the equivalent of a Jim Crow law, but it's a step in the right direction.

But, if you're willing to go that far, and most are, what is that last clinging exception? What is marriage? Where did it come from? Why do we do it? Which person gets to say who get to marry whom? Why does that person get to decide?

In every other instance in our nations history, the timeline has followed generally thus; a law is made which is fundamentally unfair, but supported by all but those whom it directly oppresses. Years pass, society slowly changes. The law is challenged in the highest courts of our nation, and struck down. Years later the legislative branch of our government does what it can to repeal the laws and progress even FURTHER away from where they were before.

Right now, we're in the activist stage. Our courts, made up of people that base their lives around understanding the law, are beginning to say that it is marriage is not some sort of certified right with contingencies, but a right conferred to all people equally, without regard to gender.

It's easy to see that it has not been this way for a long time. Gay marriage is a relatively new concept, but that doesn't mean it's a bad concept. Our entire species is plagued with the SAME sorts of rhetoric used again and again and again and again and again to frighten, subjugate, oppress and otherwise attempt to differentiate between the quality of human beings.

It's also easy to look back on our "backwards ancestors" and laugh for their petty superstitions and bigotry. But, at the same time I can sit here and draw accurate paralells between their behaviour, and your behaviour.

You may think homosexuality is wrong, sick, immoral, disgusting.


And it may surprise you to know that I am not going to disagree with any of those things. Your opinions are just that, your opinions. It is not my duty, nor my right to sit here and try to convince you that the opinions you hold are fundamentally wrong.

What I will do is give you a perspective that you have been bucking against in every single post you've made on this topic. Just as it is not my right to attempt to hijack my government to deny you an essential freedom, it is not your right to do the same to me. Every voice that raises itself in defense of things like the "DOMA", is a voice that lends credence to the idea that we should be able to discriminate on a whim.

I have grown up. I have matured. I realize that what I feel, deep down, is not something I can listen too when forming opinions about law and equality. I can only ask myself if something is doing harm. If it is, then it's wrong. Not because I agree or disagree with that something, but that someboody is being harmed by it.

As a fellow human being, you should at least empathize with me, a human being, in my request to be put on equal footing with those around me.

That's all I can ask.

[quatoria]

Euri, you have my apologies.

With your contrition, I will apologize for attacking you so savagely. I can't aide to see good friends of mine attacked, particularly in such an unpleasant way. Since you realized it was wrong, I don't harbor any ill will.

[Rywill]

Greater good of humanity? I think the most common reason given to me for allowing gay marriages is that the legalization of it has no detrimental effects on my way life and the world, but I've never heard that it would actually elevate it. Do tell. Do tell.
Although I agree with what Euri said, I'd like to make sure your question is directly answered. The greater good of humanity is advanced when society is made more just and moral. When black slaves were emancipated, all America became better, even though many Americans thought it was a terrible, immoral intrusion into their longstanding, societally accepted way of life (and note, Dirt, that these slaveowners had a much better case than you do, because they really were directly affected by emancipation). When blacks were given the vote, all America was made better, even though many Americans didn't think so.

You're asking for everything based upon your rules instead of the rules of society.
Who made you the arbiter of the "rules of society"? One of society's (at least, our society's) rules is: everyone should be treated equally under the law unless there is some rational reason to treat them differently. Another rule of our society: the law should not discriminate based on gender unless there is some compelling reason to do so. How are those rules being served? I say that with your positions, it is you who asks to have things done according to your own rules rather than society's.

That said, I understand your argument: that a majority of people are against gay marriage. But I'll reiterate the same argument I have every time this point comes up: so what? A majority of people favored slavery. A majority of people favored suffrage only for white male property-owners. That doesn't mean those ideas were right, even back then. They weren't. They were horribly, horribly wrong. It was difficult for us as a nation to realize that and even more difficult to do something about it. But we did. And now, it's time for us to do that sort of thing again, even if we have to drag people like you kicking and screaming into the next century.

Tell me Euri, if you and your partner are given all the legal benefits of being married, why do you still need to be married? What does that do for you? Does that somehow validate your relationship? Your existence? Without marriage, are you less of a person? What I'm really trying to understand is: How does marriage make you equal and/or how does not having it make you less so?
But we could ask you all the same questions: if you're willing to let them have totally equal civil unions, why do you need to prevent their marriage? What does that do for you? Does that somehow validate hetero marriages? Hetero existence? If gays could marry, would you be less of a person?

I don't think you have any reasonable answer to those questions. Ben posed them a while back and you totally ignored it. In contrast, I think Euri has a totally valid, easy answer to all your questions: a civil union is not a marriage. It's like a separate but equal school. It implies that somehow his union is less than that of a straight person, that his love is less true or meaningful, that his vows are less profound or permanent. It's bigotry, plain and simple. It's disgusting. It's time for it to go.

[Jason McCullough]

IGays say that marriage can be between 2 people of the same gender. Traditionally and historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman. This is something I have always believed to be true and continue to do so. Their belief has no direct impact in how I live my life but it does have an impact on my beliefs and the structure by which I live my life. That is all. Pretty simple.

To be pedantic, the bolded statement not something you need to "believe in" to be true, any more than you don't need to believe D-Day happened for it to be true.

And criticizing someone for screwing with your beliefs is a strange angle of attack.

Tell me Euri, if you and your partner are given all the legal benefits of being married, why do you still need to be married? What does that do for you? Does that somehow validate your relationship? Your existence? Without marriage, are you less of a person? What I'm really trying to understand is: How does marriage make you equal and/or how does not having it make you less so?

Here's an exercise: substitute "integrated schools" for "same-sex marriage." Separate is inherently unequal.

[Anders Hallin]

Gays say that marriage can be between 2 people of the same gender. Traditionally and historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman. This is something I have always believed to be true and continue to do so. Their belief has no direct impact in how I live my life but it does have an impact on my beliefs and the structure by which I live my life. That is all. Pretty simple.
Heterosexuals who believe in sending a clear signal that we see no difference between homo- and heterosexuality, as far as being valued to the community is concerned, or in what is "normal".

However, do gays care about my views on marriage and the respect in which I hold it? Of course not. They want to be married so that they can be happy, not so I can be happy. They don't care that they are destroying the uniqueness of the bond that I hope to one day share with someone that I love. They are just as selfish in the pursuit of their own happiness, their own beliefs as I am in mine.
You would deny them marriage, they want to share it. There is a slight difference in value between those two words.

[XPav]

You're asking for everything based upon your rules instead of the rules of society. Don't single me out to mock and ridicule with your personal prejudices; you, along with the people on this board seems to ignore the very fact that the majority of the people in the USA are pro civil union (equal legal rights) and pro marriage only between 1 man and 1 woman. If I am a bigot for agreeing with the majority of American society, so be it.

The majority of the US at one point didn't agree in equal rights for black people. So yes, at one point, the majority of people in the US were racist. The fact that many other people wer racist didn't make it ok.

Yes, you're a bigot. The fact that you have company doesn't make it any better.

And here's the thing, Dirt -- you're side is going to lose. Every year the opposition to gay marriage will grow weaker... and I take great comfort in the fact that there's nothing you can do about it except whine and complain. Its the natural course of the concept of "everyone is created equal." Deal with it.

[Anders Hallin]

Greater good of humanity? I think the most common reason given to me for allowing gay marriages is that the legalization of it has no detrimental effects on my way life and the world, but I've never heard that it would actually elevate it. Do tell. Do tell.
Well, I would think it's so stunningly obvious that we didn't have to. By allowing homosexuals to take part in a ceremony that is (sadly) quite fundamental to our society, we include them in society, and take a step away from the ostrasicing, discriminating, and indeed, in far too many cases, harrassing attitudes of yore. I would think that would be a badge on anyone's chest.
Just so no one missed my point, let me spell it out: discriminating someone based on homosexuality is EVIL. Is that clear enough?
A free society of equal opportunities is, at least to me, worth quite a bit, and is indeed "higher" than those who would deny homosexuals equal rights.

To take even one aspect, getting down the suicide rate of homosexual teens, would be good.

[Dirt]

IGays say that marriage can be between 2 people of the same gender. Traditionally and historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman. This is something I have always believed to be true and continue to do so. Their belief has no direct impact in how I live my life but it does have an impact on my beliefs and the structure by which I live my life. That is all. Pretty simple.

To be pedantic, the bolded statement not something you need to "believe in" to be true, any more than you don't need to believe D-Day happened for it to be true.

And criticizing someone for screwing with your beliefs is a strange angle of attack.

Tell me Euri, if you and your partner are given all the legal benefits of being married, why do you still need to be married? What does that do for you? Does that somehow validate your relationship? Your existence? Without marriage, are you less of a person? What I'm really trying to understand is: How does marriage make you equal and/or how does not having it make you less so?

Here's an exercise: substitute "integrated schools" for "same-sex marriage." Separate is inherently unequal.

comparing two men or two women of different races is like comparing a red apple to a green apple. they are still apples; there is no fundmental, physical difference between the respective two. comparing a heterosexual relationship to a gay relationship is like comparing an apple to an orange. neither is better nor worse individually or even emotionally (it's personal preference), but taken as a whole, they are fundamentally different. you are all pretty quick to slur me with "bigot", i admit i have a bias (likely due to my own sexual preferences), but i don't think that a relationship between 2 gay people is less than a relationship between 2 heterosexual people just different. men and women are fundamentally different, a woman can bear child, our laws conform that. the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, this dictates what jobs are suitable for whom; there aren't many women construction workers. confucius believed that it was important for a government to hold on to the old traditions and rituals of the past. he also believed that governmust must also conform to the needs of society and must do so by creating new traditions and new rituals. let gays create their own "marriage" rituals (with the same rights by law). honestly, for those of you who believe in gay relationships, would you feel that that relationship was any less than a heterosexual one that was bound together by their own set of commitment rituals versus the ones used by traditional heterosexual couples? of course not. who knows, maybe one day, it may happen in our time and it may happen after we are all dead, those set of rituals and traditions that bind 2 homosexuals will be held in the same esteem as those between 2 heterosexuals by everyone in society. hell, considering the rate of divorce in this country, people might respect it more and wish that they could have those set of rituals and traditions for themselves.

[XPav]

men and women are fundamentally different, a woman can bear child, our laws conform that. the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, this dictates what jobs are suitable for whom; there aren't many women construction workers.
Hey bigot, go find me the laws against women construction workers.

[Dirt]

men and women are fundamentally different, a woman can bear child, our laws conform that. the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, this dictates what jobs are suitable for whom; there aren't many women construction workers.
Hey bigot, go find me the laws against women construction workers.

it was an example; albeit a poor one. i don't know what you mean by neo-wumpisism, but at least he would be funny.

[Dirt]

men and women are fundamentally different, a woman can bear child, our laws conform that. the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, this dictates what jobs are suitable for whom; there aren't many women construction workers.
Hey bigot, go find me the laws against women construction workers.

Go live in South Africa during Apartheid; I think you'd be more careful how you use bigot. Of course, if you're white, it wouldn't have been a problem for you.

[XPav]

I'd like to nominate the last 3 posts here by Dirt for the QT3 "most likely to have been written while drunk" awards. They make little sense and are lacking things that one usually sees in everyone's posts here, like capitalization.

[awdougherty]

Dirt, I'm just curious why your happiness has anything to do with gay marriages. It seems absolutely irrelevant to the issue.

[Dirt]

I'd like to nominate the last 3 posts here by Dirt for the QT3 "most likely to have been written while drunk" awards. They make little sense and are lacking things that one usually sees in everyone's posts here, like capitalization.

Try reading it while you aren't drunk on your own ego.

[Dirt]

Dirt, I'm just curious why your happiness has anything to do with gay marriages. It seems absolutely irrelevant to the issue.

You'll have to be more specific; in my view, how isn't my own happiness important on issues that effect the society that I live in?

[awdougherty]

I'm not saying your happiness isn't important in a metaphysical sense, by why should it be considered important when interpreting the constitution? As I was going through some of the posts, it sounded like some connection ought to exist between the two. Maybe I misread though. In a response to someone I thought you said that it hasn't been demonstrated how allowing gay marriages would improve your life, but maybe that was just a specific response.

For me personally, I know my life would not be affected one way or another by the allowance of gay marriage. But even if it were adversely affected, I would still consider that irrelevant if the law as it's there in the constitution allowed it (which I believe it does and that state laws banning it are unconstitutional). The law really doesn't have much to do with what the people of the time want in many cases (especially civil rights) so whether I want gays to have that right or you don't, both are irrelevant. Now what the people want comes into play if the constitutional amendment starts to happen. If it were passed, my only argument would be the amendment is a travesty, but the fact would remain that according to our highest law, gay marriage is forbidden.

[Ben Sones]

comparing two men or two women of different races is like comparing a red apple to a green apple. they are still apples; there is no fundmental, physical difference between the respective two. comparing a heterosexual relationship to a gay relationship is like comparing an apple to an orange. neither is better nor worse individually or even emotionally (it's personal preference), but taken as a whole, they are fundamentally different. you are all pretty quick to slur me with "bigot", i admit i have a bias (likely due to my own sexual preferences), but i don't think that a relationship between 2 gay people is less than a relationship between 2 heterosexual people just different.

But you do want to afford them lesser status in the eyes of the law. The issue is not how you feel about gay relationships, but rather what legal rights they deserve.

men and women are fundamentally different, a woman can bear child, our laws conform that.

This is irrelevant. Marriage carries no child-bearing requirment, and arguing that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't conceive is sophistry and an unfair double standard. Heterosexual couples are free to marry but not have children, if they choose. They are also free to marry even if they are unable to have children, for whatever reason.

the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, this dictates what jobs are suitable for whom; there aren't many women construction workers.

Again, I don't see the relevance. Can you give one specific example of why the differences between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple makes one suitable for marriage while the other is not? Particularly in the eyes of the law (I'm not even sure what your analogy is supposed to prove, here, since it is illegal to refuse to hire someone based on their gender).

confucius believed that it was important for a government to hold on to the old traditions and rituals of the past. he also believed that governmust must also conform to the needs of society and must do so by creating new traditions and new rituals. let gays create their own "marriage" rituals (with the same rights by law).

Well, here I agree. At least, I agree if you mean that gay couples should be able to have a state marriage (via a justice of the peace), but religious institutions should not be forced to condone gay marriage. At least, that's what it seems like you are saying. I may be misunderstanding you. If you mean that they should have civil unions but not legal marriage, then I disagree.

honestly, for those of you who believe in gay relationships, would you feel that that relationship was any less than a heterosexual one that was bound together by their own set of commitment rituals versus the ones used by traditional heterosexual couples?

I would if they were compelled by law to use those rituals ("civil union," presumably) rather than the rituals afforded everyone else (marriage). I mean, it's obviously very important to you, right? You said that you value the "uniqueness" of the marriage bond so much that you can't stand even the thought of gay couples sharing it. But when it comes to gay couples, you say that they shouldn't care about whether they can marry or not. Do you see the double standard here?

[XPav]

I'd like to nominate the last 3 posts here by Dirt for the QT3 "most likely to have been written while drunk" awards. They make little sense and are lacking things that one usually sees in everyone's posts here, like capitalization.

Try reading it while you aren't drunk on your own ego.

Ego is good with a slice of lemon.

I'm just calling you a bigot, which you admit you are. What's the problem?

[Rywill]

I vote that XPav and Dirt take a deep breath before going at each other anymore. Posting just to say "You're a bigot" -- even if you genuinely believe it -- doesn't advance the ball. The debate's been mostly civil, which has been pretty cool. I have no say over anything, but I'd just ask you guys to keep it above the belt as a favor to me. Also, you shot me in Planetside the other day, so you owe me one anyway.

[Dirt]

I'd like to nominate the last 3 posts here by Dirt for the QT3 "most likely to have been written while drunk" awards. They make little sense and are lacking things that one usually sees in everyone's posts here, like capitalization.

Try reading it while you aren't drunk on your own ego.

Ego is good with a slice of lemon.

I'm just calling you a bigot, which you admit you are. What's the problem?

The problem is I'm letting myself get too attached to this issue. I need a break.

Euri, get thee to thine happiness.

[Midnight Son]

Yo, Dirt, why are you so attached to this issue anyway? If getting married makes gay people happy and doesn't hurt anything then why not just let them do it? What's the big deal? (I ask the same of many politicians.)

[XPav]

I vote that XPav and Dirt take a deep breath before going at each other anymore. Posting just to say "You're a bigot" -- even if you genuinely believe it -- doesn't advance the ball. The debate's been mostly civil, which has been pretty cool. I have no say over anything, but I'd just ask you guys to keep it above the belt as a favor to me. Also, you shot me in Planetside the other day, so you owe me one anyway.
Maybe Dirt should come play Planetside with us. Then we can all happily kill people for the sole reason that they're a different color. :lol:

[Jason McCullough]

Ohio gay Republican switches parties:

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/001298.html

My favorite thing out of this so far is Santorum saying people will *stop getting married* if this passes. Funny.

[extarbags]

Ohio gay Republican switches parties:

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/001298.html

My favorite thing out of this so far is Santorum saying people will *stop getting married* if this passes. Funny.

Good old Santorum. He's my voice in the Senate, you know.

*ties noose*

[Euri]

Ohio gay Republican switches parties:

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/001298.html

My favorite thing out of this so far is Santorum saying people will *stop getting married* if this passes. Funny.

Santorums punishment for his rabid stupidity is having the most horrible byproduct of anal sex named after him.

200 years from now people will be cursing santorum. Not the man, but the foam.

I bet the stays up late and night thinking about it.

[Qenan]

Too much information, Euri.

[Jason McCullough]

Eh? Welcome to last year, Qenan.

[Qenan]

You can keep it...