A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[jdev]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Homosexuality doesn't spread aids. People's lack of education spreads aids.

well said.

Originally posted by shartley

LOL What?

You have got to be kidding me with that response.

so, what you are saying (and seeminly from what you have posted), is that homosexuals are ENTIRELY responsible for the vast majority of the spread of AIDS.

what you're saying here is that if people were more informed of it, they wouldn't be more weary of it and take more precautions? so, its better for one to remain unknowing, and let them figure it out on their own.. when at this point, it would already be too late, and irreversible.

[jdev]

Originally posted by Rooster
The question is not should gays be allowed to marry who they like. The question is, should anyone be able to marry who or whatever they like.

actually, the title of the thread is "A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment"

not

"A Defense of man marrying 5 animals, 7 husbands, 3 little boys, 4 little girls and 1 wife"

I think that covers everything, polygamy, pedophelia, nambla, beasteality, and one can use their imagination as to the type of sex they may or may not have in the confines of their own home

[jdev]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

That's a fact?

what about this?

Link

thanks for that. all previous links requested of you sam can go unanswered, if they were to be unanswered at all.

[jdev]

Originally posted by Konigballer
all of this debating about preserving the intitution of marriage would actually mean something if the institution of marriage was'nt a complete joke already for hetero couples.

whats the divorce rate in this country, it was around 50%.....yeah marriage sure is a sacred institution

People really should'nt get all red in tha' face about this issue, gay marriages won't effect your marriage at all. You wil most likely screw up your marriage very effectively BY YOURSELVES.

speaking of marriage being a sared institution.. and because, I want to post pictures to this thread too..

[jdev]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

Except there are still sodomy laws around the country so in fact, Homosexual behavior is not leagl everywhere!
[/B]

man, people must be pissed now by reading post after post by me.. whats this, number 6 in a row.

anyways. because sodomy laws are still in place around the country, does not mean homosexual activity is illegal. If you think about it, 2 women together, would not necessarily yeild the act of sodomy. nor does it have to stand that way with 2 men either. 2 men can be together and engange in what we would define as "homosexual activity" without the act of sodomy involved

[logamus]

Originally posted by joey d
because sodomy laws are still in place around the country, does not mean homosexual activity is illegal. If you think about it, 2 women together, would not necessarily yeild the act of sodomy. nor does it have to stand that way with 2 men either. 2 men can be together and engange in what we would define as "homosexual activity" without the act of sodomy involved

sodomy
A term denoting a number of sexual practices variously proscribed by law, especially bestiality, oral-genital contact, and anal intercourse.

Synonym: buggery.

Origin: see sodomist

(05 Mar 2000)

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=sodomy&action=Search+OMD

what other "homosexual activities" could two guys (or girls) do that dont fall in that definition? open mouth kissing and spooning i suppose. and for those that missed the news back in november, sodomy laws have pretty much been done away with.

[jdev]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
I must disagree. To compare the plight of gays to blacks is to trivialize their suffering. How many gays have been lynched?

does the name matthew shepard ring a bell? http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/wyom-o13.shtml

im not sure I should post more links on the matter, as I dont want this conversation to turn into "well, blacks were lynched more than gays", because really, it only takes one..

on a lighter note, I HIGHLY recommend watching "The Matthew Shepard Story". it can usually be found playing from time to time on HBO, or go to blockbusters and pick it up.

[jdev]

Originally posted by logamus


sodomy
A term denoting a number of sexual practices variously proscribed by law, especially bestiality, oral-genital contact, and anal intercourse.

Synonym: buggery.

Origin: see sodomist

(05 Mar 2000)

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=sodomy&action=Search+OMD

what other "homosexual activities" could two guys (or girls) do that dont fall in that definition? open mouth kissing and spooning i suppose. and for those that missed the news back in november, sodomy laws have pretty much been done away with.

I would then stand corrected about gay couples acting in this. I will admit, I hastily posted this, and had a poor definition of the law. I had thought it was only in relation to anal intercourse. my bad.

so, then, under the above pretenses, 1DE is still wrong, as it would also make heterosexual activities illegal too.. because lets face it.. all the gals here have tried tubesteak, and all the guys here have dined at at least one pink taco stand.

also, submitted for your perusal.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/

[logamus]

Originally posted by joey d


does the name matthew shepard ring a bell? http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/wyom-o13.shtml

im not sure I should post more links on the matter, as I dont want this conversation to turn into "well, blacks were lynched more than gays", because really, it only takes one..

on a higher note, I HIGHLY recommend watching "The Matthew Shepard Story". it can usually be found playing from time to time on HBO, or go to blockbusters and pick it up.

matthew shepard, thats the name that kept escaping me. i was trying to retell the story in earlier posts. i do agree with you that i didnt want this discussion to bog down into who has it worse, blacks or gays, but the "only takes one" is the exact point i have been trying to make. thanks for this post.

on a somewhat lighter note, do black gays have it twice as bad?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by joey d


does the name matthew shepard ring a bell? http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/wyom-o13.shtml

im not sure I should post more links on the matter, as I dont want this conversation to turn into "well, blacks were lynched more than gays", because really, it only takes one..

on a lighter note, I HIGHLY recommend watching "The Matthew Shepard Story". it can usually be found playing from time to time on HBO, or go to blockbusters and pick it up.

We all know that happened. There is a big difference between one or two occurences and institutionalized brutality. I reccommend you go watch Mississippi Burning then come back to me with your comparrisons.

What happened to that kid was a cowardly act of murder! It was a homophobe who either overreacted or wanted to rob/murder someone. You can also state the girl from "Boys Don't Cry" too. Tina Brandon I believe. However this is an exception, not the rule which is why the plights can never be compared.

How many Gay Churches have been fire bombed?

Know what else? Most blacks take great umbrage at Gays trying to cast themselves as a civil rights cause.

Finally I never said Sodomy laws were right or wrong, merely that they are there!

[logamus]

well 1de, how many gays have to die because they are gay for you to consider it a violation of their civil rights? do gay churches have to be burned down? do gays need to swing from the oaks by the thousands? do they need to be forced to the back of the bus? at what point is there a time to intervene?

i never said sodomy laws are good or bad, simply that the supreme court overturned them back in november.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by logamus
well 1de, how many gays have to die because they are gay for you to consider it a violation of their civil rights? do gay churches have to be burned down? do gays need to swing from the oaks by the thousands? do they need to be forced to the back of the bus? at what point is there a time to intervene?

When the opression of them is institutionalized and not in their head! The TWO murders I mentioned were cowardly acts of violence. However, it is not society that is doing this in general.


There is no right to marry just as there is no right to drive. It is a privage. My wife can't drive, because she is visually impaired. Should I sue NJ for discriminating against her because of her handicap? Maybe I should invoke the ADA? No, because I know better.

Look at the Florida case of the muslim lady who wanted to take her Driver's License picture with her veil on. She sued on the grounds of Freedom of religion. She lost on common sense grounds!
Link.

Rights are not abosolutes. Not being allowed to marry is a far cry from violating anyone's civil rights.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gays want to marry. Fine, do it the right way. Change the law in the legislature by electing like minded representatives. Failing that, you lose. Majority still rules in America!

[logamus]

a majority of the people supported jim crow laws in their day too. was the majority right back then?


since its obvious we are not going to persuade the other i shall accept that we agree to disagree on this. i really dont have much of a problem either way, but i do think this needs to be a state to state issue. the only time the constitution was amended to limit the freedoms of americans it failed miserably. not that i think gay marriage is similar to prohibition, but it is something to consider. the constitution is there to protect and expand the freedoms of americans, not to limit them.

if the Great state of Texas decided to put gay marriage on the ballot i would vote for it, but when it lost by 99% i wouldnt lose alot of sleep.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by logamus
since its obvious we are not going to persuade the other i shall accept that we agree to disagree on this. i really dont have much of a problem either way, but i do think this needs to be a state to state issue. the only time the constitution was amended to limit the freedoms of americans it failed miserably. not that i think gay marriage is similar to prohibition, but it is something to consider. the constitution is there to protect and expand the freedoms of americans, not to limit them. [/QUOTE]

I can agree to disagree with you as well.

However, this must become a federal issue though. If one rogue state allows it and 49 others do not, the 49 others lose. They are bound by to honor the license issued from those states. Social Security and Medicare would also be bound to honor them. You can have different drving tests in each state, but all of them are bound to honor you license regardless of which state it comes from.

Article 4 of the US constitution requires this under the full faith and credit clause. Link here.

So this must become a Federal Issue to avoid allowing one state to dictate national policy.

[1stdeadeye]

Black Congressional Caucus does not want Gay rights compared to civil rights!

Hmm right from the horses mouth!