As reported by PlanetOut here, both Nevada and Nebraska have anti-same-sex marriage amendments on their ballots in November:
This is for all you fucking idiots that think “defense of marriage” proposals aren’t anti-gay, and for those who think religious groups (notably the Mormons in this case) aren’t trying to inflict their definition of morality on the rest of the country.
FUCK.
Esprix
Damn right homsexuality has economic consequences. Less children, means more disposable income, means more pottery barns, means more jobs, means better economy.
Could someone please tell me what the negative economic consequences of homosexuality are?
Esprix, I agree wholeheartedly. FUCK.
I was disappointed when California voted against gay marriage. I figured if any state had a chance, it would be this one. And to make matters worse, I never saw a single logical argument against gay marriage; all they could do was quote the Bible. Who the hell did the voting?
I’d tell you to move to Vermont and be done with all of that, but there are so many ‘Take Back Vermont’ signs around (even in businesses) that it makes me very upset sometimes.
K.
I was so disgusted during the Presidential debate last week when both Goofus and Gallant proudly affirmed that they’d signed the “Defense of Marriage” act. And this when they were trying to state how “tolerant” they are of gays!
The word “tolerant” also peeves me. You “tolerate” a cold or a sprained ankle. It carries an air of dismayed resignation with it.
So what states do allow same-sex marriage?
Scandanavia.
No US state allows same-sex marriage. The federal government has enacted pre-emptive legislation to allow any state that wants to not to recognize any other state that might ever possibly enact such marriages. 30 states have also enacted the same legislation, saying that in this state marriage is defined as man and woman, and if any other state says otherwise, we will not recognize it here as a legitimate marriage. Pfooey.
The state of Vermont, however, has the “marriage equivalent” known as Civil Unions, which are completely equivalent to any other marriage in Vermont (on a state level, not a federal level), but they have a different name. Go fig.
Yeah, equality is alive and well in the US. :rolleyes:
Defense of Marriage?! Don’t these people have better things to do with their time?
Two concenting adults who want to share the rest of their lives together legally is not too much to ask.
My mom and her girlfriend both wear rings, but never went thru a legal ceremony.
I know it is too much to ask for others to let people be happy. Misery loves company and damit if they can’t be happy in a hetero marriage why should anyone in a gay marriage be allowed to live happily ever after?
I really thought that it was pretty cool when I read about the couple who were able to get married because of a loop hole about genetics. Geneticaly the one was a man who went and became a woman and fell in love with and wanted to marry another woman.
I know it’s not the same, but maybe a start of things to come.
We have a few churches around here that hold gay weddings, but IIRC it’s just a paper marriage and not legal.
I’ve got a better solution; Let’s get rid of marriage as a legal institution. Completely eliminate it. If people want to get married, terrific; they can hold ceremonies and make vows and hold them in churches and whatever, but why should the state have any part of it?
If you want to share assets or protect yourself from a messy divorce, sign a contract. A marriage is just a type of contract, so let people worry about it rather than putting it in law. I honestly see no advantage at all in having the province of Ontario recognize my marriage to my wife. It’s not like they helped us plan the ceremony or paid for the cake. Want your spouse to be a dependent? Fine; make it tax law that any cohabitant below a certain income can be your dependent.
What’s being forgotten by the pro-gay-marriage side of the debate (and is completely beyond the anti side) is that the legal status of marriage WAS, whether y’all like it or not, meant for man-woman relationships. Rather than just saying “we want that,” consider the possibility that invalidating the underlying assumptions of the institution (man-woman marriages only) invalidate the legitimacy of the institution itself.
After all, why “Allow gay marriages”? Because it’s right or equitable? Well, no, it wouldn’t be equitable; it’s still a legal advantage you’re conferring on people for what is, from the state’s perspective, an arbitrary definition. Why not confer the same right onto ALL pairs living together even when they’re just roommates? What about siblings living together, why not? Triad relationships? Why do gay couples have the right to get into the club but not other types of relationships?
I think the institution of marriage is a fine one but let’s make it a PRIVATE institution and let people define it on their own. You could significantly simplify the law if you were to approach the entire concept from the perspective of having no state marriage recognition, rather than extending it from one group to two groups.
The logical solution is to completely revisit the concept. Take marriage off the lawbooks.
This kind of crap really pisses me off. On the one hand I hear homophones complaining about how gays are deviant and promiscuous, but then when they hear about a gay couple that wants to make a legal commitment in addition to the emotional commitment that they already have, those same homophobes talk about how marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. And of course they fail to acknowledge the hypocrisy of holding these two attitudes simultaneously.
Is this how the Mormons turn gays straight? They just give a patch and send them to a 12 step program.
THere is a quite usefull aspect to marriage. Immigration. I’m curious how you would incorporate that into your solution?
What’s that called, Dickotrol?
sorry.
Porcupine said:
Eye object two that comment!
Seriously, I’m disgusted by this crap. The arguments about marriage being “defined” as between one man and one woman are exactly like the arguments supporting antimiscegenation laws. Like the legislators aren’t deliberately denying you rights, it’s the definition of the word, and they can’t change that! Wankers.
Eve wrote:
My understanding on this matter is apparently lacking, but doesn’t it take nothing short of a Constitutional amendment to get around the `Full Faith and Credit’ clause of the Constitution? Or do I misunderstand what that means?
For the record, I don’t see this so much as “homophobia” as it’s “anythingthatisn’tusophobia”, although that’s just playing around with semantics… 
Precisely… there ISN’T any logical, temporal argument against gay marriage. While I do believe other people’s religious beliefs to be valid, they have no right to impose their beliefs on other people with “God says so” as their only means of backing it up. 'Specially since God said a lot of things (for instance, he said that we should take unruly/rebellious teen-agers and stone them to death in front of the whole village*… how often does that happen?)
(*Depending on which version of the Bible you use… this comes from KJV)
What a ridiculous load of shit. I am so pissed off…
Hey, you religious fuckwads? It’s OK for YOU to believe whatever hypocritical, unproven dogma bullshit you want. Hey, Jesus walked on water? I don’t give a fuck if you think that’s true, or that Moses parted the Red Sea or that the fucking unicorns did not make it onto the Ark. OK? But just because you believe that nonsense doesn’t mean I have to. Likewise, just because YOUR religion opposes gay marriages, doesn’t mean that I have to. So take your fucking nonsensical, homophobic, trash-talking, stereotypical, hate-, violence-, and segregation-causing rhetoric and shove it up your fucking ass.
IT’S CALLED SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! HOW FYCKING NOVEL IS THAT!! INSTEAD OF MENTALLY MATURBATING TO THE BIBLE EVERY NIGHT, MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY READING THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION! THAT WAY, WHEN YOU WALLOW IN BULLSHIT RELIGIOUS DOGMA AND THEN TRY TO APPLY IT TO EVERYONE, WHETHER THEY BELIEV OR NOT, YOU MIGHT SOUND LIKE YOUA CTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOUY ARE TALKING AVBOUT. CAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? SPOUTING BIBLE SHIT TO ME DOESN’T MAKE YOU SEEM SMART. IT SIMPLY REMINDS ME THAT YOU ARE EGOTISTICAL, IGNORANT, AND BRAINWASHED.
Thankyouvery much. I feel much better now that that is off my chest.
So what would you do? Enact legislation requiring everyone to wholeheartedly approve of everything you hold dear? Toleration is exactly what is required in a free democratic society. I’m not crazy about an awful lot of things that go on all around, and I outright disapprove of a lot of it, but so long as these things don’t infringe upon my rights I’ll tolerate them, but I’ll be damned if I approve (doesn’t necessarily apply to the specific subject at hand).
Speaking of tolerant…
(I’m trying hard to tolerate the typos :).)
johnson, so it peeves her. That’s all she said. So what’s the problem? She’s not trying to force her views on you. It just annoys her, that’s all.
Actually SPOOFE, when a majority of the populace votes their conscience it’s not called “imposing their beliefs.” In most places it’s called “democracy.” And they don’t need to quote ANYTHING to justify it. There are obviously quite a few people on this Board who are extremely angry about this issue. I don’t want to be unfeeling, but…too bad. Marriage is not a “right” the way freedom of speech or religion are. It is up to the states to regulate it any way they wish, and the majority has clearly made its will known on this issue. The U.S. is a democracy (most of the time, anyway) and that means that when the majority of the people feel a certain way, that viewpoint will hold sway 99% of the time. If gays constituted 51% of the population, then I’m sure they could/would enact legislation legalizing…well, all things gay. And then maybe this Board would be full of conservatives raving about the “Godless faggots.” And then I would type this SAME post to those people (with a few words changed around, of course.)
I’m not trying to start a fight with anyone with this post, nor am I saying that gays should just grin-n’-bear-it. My point is that when you look at the matter logically, gays are not being treated unfairly, even though it might seem so. They are not getting what they want because A) they are a minority, and B) WHAT they want is not something covered by the “absolute” rights mentioned in the Constitution. Until one or both of these conditions changes, gays will never have as much freedom as they want.
If you look at the whole thing sociologically, you could just say that they gay community has finally been dealt a political setback after 25 years of unbroken successes. It had to happen eventually. If ya’ll can cool down a little and think about it rationally, did you ever REALLY think the American people wouls simply accept homosexuality as a lifestyle just as valid as any other? A backlash was bound to happen sooner or later.
Oh, and I think publicly stoning teenagers would do WONDERS in solving the discipline problems in our schools.