Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually amendments can be unconstitutional and can be removed because of that.

You are the biggest moron in the history of the world, aren't you?

You've been infected with Pedro Poopy Pants's dementia moronia- the linguistic affliction that describes all posters in terms of their moronhood.

The Conclave of Moronia swells.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Thorn

It is not a friggen lifestyle, it is how we live. Unless you consider yourself a heterosexual lifestyle. Lifestyle implies that you CHOOSE for this happen, it is more like homosexual CIRCUMSTANCES, not lifestyle.

What kind of a moron marries someone that they don't love or aren't attracted to, and don't even want to be around, does that make and &(#$(*&$# sense!!??!

If you do it is usually fraud to try and fool the INS.

To marry someone you don´t love was absolutely normal for the western (christian) world during most of the time.
To marry because of love is something that developed during the 19th/20th century.
Before that time it was rather normal to marry the person which your parents chose for you or which would bring the most gain for your Family.
And till today the latter is absolutely normal in other cultures, for example within the hinduistic or the muslim world.
Often the couple sees each other a few day before the marriage or even at the day of the marriage for the first time.
I don´t know about christian sects, but I could imagine in some of them this practice is still alive, even today.

So if you don´t connect marriage with love, you aren´t disciminated.

But, yes, if you insist on marrrying the person you love, you are de facto discriminated because this isn´t possible for homosexuals if the person you marry has to be of the opposite sex.

Sorry, I´m just playing advocatus diaboli here.
And it could be a good counterargument for christian fundamentalists that you aren´t prevented to marry, regardless wether you are homo or hetero (as long as you don´t marry a person of the same sex).

I am for the right of Homosexuals to marry each other, as I don´t see the matrimony as a prerequisite for producing Children (and after all also a gay/lesbian couple is able to raise a child [as long as law allows it])
After all the homosexual world fights also in Germany for the right to marry the person they love (with the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) being strongly against it and the Greens being strong supporters of the Homosexuals)

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually this amendment is unconstitutional.

That is impossible, Giancarlo. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, no matter WHAT!

[Thorn]

To marry someone you don´t love was absolutely normal for the western (christian) world during most of the time.
To marry because of love is something that developed during the 19th/20th century.
Before that time it was rather normal to marry the person which your parents chose for you or which would bring the most gain for your Family.
And till today the latter is absolutely normal in other cultures, for example within the hinduistic or the muslim world.
Often the couple sees each other a few day before the marriage or even at the day of the marriage for the first time.

Wake up you christian psychos (not directed at you).... the world has existed for a looooooong time before Christians did....

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
Kerry and Edwards will both dance in the middle of the road because the repukes have made this an issue.


I think this illustrates how much of a ****ing moron bush is and how much disrespect he has for civil rights, equality, the constitution, and America in general.

yeah let's put weddings in the ****ing constitution while were at it, let's put something in there for birthdays and barmitzvas too

Yes.

and conservatives, I thought you dopes didn't like the federal government telling you what to do... I guess you turn a blind eye to authoritarian crap like this

Believe me, we don't.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually this amendment is unconstitutional.

That is impossible, Giancarlo. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, no matter WHAT!

Oh man.......

[Imran Siddiqui]

At least Giancarlo is our moron .

[Asher]

Anyone else watching Larry King and the pastor making an ass out of himself? Not to mention the wench congresswoman.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who the Hell watches Larry King?!

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned


Giancarlo, the amendments become part of the constitution and cannot be declared unconstitutional.

Haha! Wrong! There are 3 (now really 2) amendments that are unconstitutional:

(1) Ending the slave trade before 1808 (now obsolete)
(2) Depriving a state of equal representation in the Senate.
(3) Creating titles of nobility.

The costitution forbids these and amendments that would allow these.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by molly bloom


You've been infected with Pedro Poopy Pants's dementia moronia- the linguistic affliction that describes all posters in terms of their moronhood.

The Conclave of Moronia swells.

You are an *******.. will you grow up will you?

[CiverDan]

This afternoon Sen. Santorum from PA made the statement that Gay marriage might lead to Parents marrying childen. I personally would like to see a poll seeing how many people is this country would actually be in favor of THAT. Probably not many.... As far as I know, in countries where gay marriage is legal, people arent petitioning for the right to marry their children (or there dogs for that matter).. This is an arguement I get tired of hearing.

I think there are too separate debates going on here. One is about the meaning of the term "marriage", and its long-standing social and religious meaning that it imparts The other is about the family structure in general and how homosexuals should or should have a part is this.

Conservative groups, if they want to make a solid argument (I am not a conservative) should focus on these points. Give me data that tells me that children adopted by homosexual couples are more likely to be homosexual, have more troubles lives, etc., from countries where gay marriage is legal now and/or focus on the religious connection (even if marriage is technical not religious act) I really get turned off when I hear agruments like:

1. The "This will lead to incest" argument given above

2. Homosexual relationships are less stable - Well..I would find it less enticing to stay in a relationship also If I couldnt get married, raise children, or gain financial benifits from maintaing a relationship. 50 % of heterosexual relationshis do end in divorce, even given the above.

3. This will cause the collapse of civilation like it did to the Roman Empire. Were all Barbarians gay? ZZZzzzz

[Giancarlo]

Santorum is not really relevant to this debate as he is pretty arrogant of the facts.

3. This will cause the collapse of civilation like it did to the Roman Empire. Were all Barbarians gay? ZZZzzzz

Well the Roman Empire collapsed just after it changed its religion to a monotheist system, Christianity I believe.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually this amendment is unconstitutional.

That is impossible, Giancarlo. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, no matter WHAT!

Wrong! See above (and Art. 5), Nimrod.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Bush is a friggan idiot who is gonna join the ranks of the unemployed come January.

In your dream.