posted on February 9, 2004 05:44:10 PM new
Amen, Gravid. It is nothing but hate, blind hatred, and "morality" is always the cloak the ignorant don to spew it.
posted on February 9, 2004 06:19:01 PM new
I've never seen such homophobia in anyone so I researched it and found this site which helps to explain why some feel the way they do.
posted on February 9, 2004 08:17:56 PM new
I think they would have more success if they called it "civil unions", rather than marriage so then it doesnt actually intrude on the quote - sacrament of marriage -uquote. That is the point of it is anyway, isnt it?
Logan, I dont think some on your list are certifiably gay. But we all need our heros.
posted on February 10, 2004 05:30:51 AM new
No Homosexual Adoptions in Florida, Federal Court Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
January 29, 2004
(CNSNews.com) -In a setback for homosexual advocacy groups, a federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a Florida law barring same-sex couples from adopting children.
"Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by" gay people, Judge Stanley Birch wrote in the court's unanimous decision, "and we found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment."
Florida is the only state that specifically bans homosexual adoption, although homosexual couples are allowed to be foster parents or guardians. Family groups, meanwhile, are praising the judge's ruling.
"Study after study has proven that households with a married mother and father create the best development environment for children, and as the 11th Circuit noted, the plaintiffs in this case were unable to refute that evidence," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.
"This ruling is a breath of fresh air at a time when courts around the nation are overstepping their bounds and pushing the homosexual agenda," said Perkins.
"If only the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - which itself acted as a 'superlegislature' in order to decree a right to same-sex 'marriage' - had as much commonsense," Perkins added.
"While special circumstances may require kids being raised in special arrangements, the 11th Circuit Court has recognized that Florida has a legitimate interest in placing children in stable homes headed by opposite-sex parents," Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson said.
"The importance of both mothers and fathers in the healthy development of children cannot be overstated. While it is certainly true that many homosexual couples are motivated by love to care for children without parents, research has proven that such arrangements are hardly ideal," Dobson added.
CNSNews.com Morning Editor Susan Jones contributed to this report.
That is good news, I encourage all decent Americans to read and support the anti-gay organizations... this putrid decay of morality and values must be stopped.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Feb 10, 2004 06:09 AM ]
posted on February 10, 2004 08:03:04 AM new
neroter12,
I did find that list on the web so I can't say it is 100% accurate, but it does make you think about some of the famous people in history. Do we remember them for their sexual orientation or do we remember them for their achievements? I think the later is true.
Just becasue a man is married to a woman doesnt make the man straight. I know a few men who were married, had kids only to divorce their wives at a later date because they were really gay. This was after 15-25 years of marriage.
posted on February 10, 2004 08:06:19 AM new
I am glad someone brought up the Florida gay adoption issue.
So the state of Florida would rather have a child living in a foster home stay in a foster home instead of placing him/her in a stable home environment with people that can provide love.
Yes this make a lot of sense to me, but doesnt surprise me.
The state of Florida can get an election correct and then they want to deal with a child's future.
posted on February 11, 2004 06:31:18 PM new
Feb 11, 9:18 PM EST
Compromise on Gay Marriage Ban Rejected
By JENNIFER PETER
Associated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) -- The Massachusetts Legislature narrowly rejected a compromise proposal Wednesday that sought to legalize civil unions but ban same-sex marriages, delivering a setback to lawmakers who wanted to avoid taking the divisive issue head-on.
The defeat of the compromise means that lawmakers will return to the Statehouse on Thursday to consider either an outright ban on gay marriage or letting the state's constitution remain intact.
The joint House and Senate session adjourned for the evening about 8:30 p.m. after about six hours of debate.
The bipartisan proposal was crafted by Senate leaders who wished to overturn a high court decision legalizing gay marriage while still extending equal benefits to gay couples. It was rejected 104-94.
The compromise would have made Vermont-style civil unions automatically legal in Massachusetts in November 2006, the earliest an amendment could be placed on a ballot for voter approval. At that time, any gay couples married in Massachusetts would be stripped of their licenses and considered part of a civil union.
Massachusetts was thrust into the epicenter of the national gay marriage debate in November when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 that that it was unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from marriage.
The court definitively reaffirmed the decision last week, clearing the way for the first state-recognized gay marriages in U.S. history to start taking place in May.
Rep. Philip Travis, a Democrat who sponsored the original ban on gay marriage, said the compromise proposal would have asked voters to decide on two potentially conflicting initiatives - a ban on gay marriage and the legalization of civil unions - with one vote.
"It goes beyond what the people wish to vote on," Travis said. "It is almost like offering a true-false question. How do you respond by voting yes or no at the ballot box?"
People from across the country were confronted with tight security and a throng of reporters as the lawmakers entered the volatile national debate over gay rights.
Impromptu rallies erupted outside the two-century-old building, and hundreds of people lined both sides of the street, holding signs, waving flags and eliciting honks from passing cars.
The chants broke out spontaneously in pockets up and down the street, and included, "Hey hey, ho ho homophobia's got to go." Others chanted, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," or held signs that read "Civil Unions Sitting on the Back of the Bus."
State police had to separate two crowds inside the Statehouse who began pushing and shoving after one group unfurled an American flag across from the chamber and began chanting "One Man. One Woman. Let the People Vote." Moments later, a contingent of gay marriage backers arrived shouting "Equality Now."
At one point, dozens of opponents of gay marriage knelt and prayed amid the din.
The debate began with consideration of an unexpected amendment, proposed at the last minute by House Speaker Thomas Finneran, that would ban gay marriage but allow the Legislature to adopt civil unions.
After two hours of debate and accusations that the Democratic speaker was trying to hijack the process, that amendment was shot down by a 100-98 vote.
Debate then turned to the Senate compromise, which suffered the same fate.
In arguing against the gay-marriage ban, Sen. Dianne Wilkerson drew upon her experience as a black woman growing up in Arkansas, where the hospital did not allow her mother to deliver her children.
"I know the pain of being less than equal and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," a teary-eyed Wilkerson said. "I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."
Supporters of a ban called for the Legislature to respect 3,000 years of tradition.
"Every society, every culture, every nation in all of recorded history, including Massachusetts, has up until this point at least defined marriage as one man and one woman," Finneran said.
The Legislature is tightly controlled by the Democrats, who hold 169 of the 199 seats. (One seat is vacant.) The Legislature is also heavily Roman Catholic.
The votes will force lawmakers to finally declare their stand on a divisive social issue that most would prefer to avoid, especially with all 200 legislative seats up for grabs at the November elections.
If gay marriage takes place in Massachusetts, federal lawsuits would probably ensue as gay couples seek recognition in other states and by the federal government. While marriages performed in one state are normally recognized in other jurisdictions, 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage.
In California, a state lawmaker plans to introduce legislation this week that would legalize gay marriage in that state.
posted on February 11, 2004 06:47:26 PM new
If we have another civil war will they pretend it was over gays like the last one was supposed to be over slaves?
posted on February 11, 2004 07:09:09 PM new
Compromise on Gay Marriage Ban Rejected
By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - Massachusetts lawmakers shot down an attempted compromise amendment Wednesday night that sought to legalize civil unions but ban gay marriage — leaving open the possibility of either an outright ban without any benefits for same-sex couples or letting the state's constitution remain intact.
The Legislature's inability to reach a compromise after more than six hours of debate left the outcome of the constitutional convention in flux.
The constitutional convention adjourned for the evening about 8:30 p.m. EST but was to reconvene Thursday to pick up where lawmakers left off: debating an issue that has put Massachusetts at the forefront of a contentious social, political, religious and legal issue.
Massachusetts was thrust into the epicenter of the national gay marriage debate in November when the state's highest court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marriage, a decision that was reaffirmed last week. Under the decision, the nation's first government-sanctioned gay marriages will take place in mid-May.
Left with few alternatives, lawmakers who opposed gay marriage turned to the constitutional amendment process as a way to preserve the institution as a heterosexual union.
More than 3,700 citizens and 300 members of the international media descended on the Statehouse to witness a debate that have could repercussions across the country, particularly in an election year featuring a Democratic candidate for president from Massachusetts.
Crowds chanted "Let the people vote!" and "Equality now!" outside the House chamber at the start of the session.
The bipartisan proposal, which was rejected by a 104-94 margin, was crafted by a bipartisan group of Senate leaders who wished to ban gay marriage while still extending equal benefits to gay couples.
The amendment was condemned by gay-rights advocates and their conservative opponents. It would have automatically legalized civil unions in Massachusetts in November 2006, the earliest an amendment could be placed on a ballot for voter approval.
If the amendment was approved at that time, gay couples married in the interim period would have been stripped of their licenses and considered part of a civil union.
Earlier in the day, lawmakers narrowly defeated a surprise amendment by House Speaker Thomas Finneran, an ardent opponent of gay marriage, that included only the possibility of civil unions, rather than making them automatic in 2006.
The votes came during an impassioned debate about the meaning of the constitution, the lessons of slavery, and the importance of preserving an institution that has existed as a heterosexual union for 3,000 years.
Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, R-East Longmeadow, who co-sponsored the Senate leadership's compromise amendment, called the change "a fair compromise at this point."
"This is in no way stops what the Supreme Court has ruled," Lees said.
Rep. Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth, who sponsored the original constitutional ban defining marriage as a heterosexual union, said the Lees amendment would ask citizens to decide on two potentially conflicting initiatives — a ban on gay marriage and the legalization of civil unions — with one vote.
"It goes beyond what the people wish to vote on," Travis said. "It is almost like offering a true-false question. How do you respond by voting yes or no at the ballot box?"
The competing amendments and shifting alliances injected an unusual level of frenzy into a Democrat-dominated Legislature known for its carefully orchestrated debates. Democrats control 169 of the 200 seats. (One seat is vacant.)
Originally proposed in early 2003, the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage gained more immediate significance after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled November that it was unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage.
Opponents rooted their arguments in the constitution's guarantee of every citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, D-Boston, drew upon her experience as a black woman growing up in Arkansas, where the public hospital did not allow her mother to deliver her children.
"I know the pain of being less than equal and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," a teary-eyed Wilkerson said. "I was but one generation removed from an existence in slavery. I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."
Supporters of a ban called for the Legislature to allow voters the opportunity to weigh in on this fundamental cultural issue.
"Mother Nature left her blueprint behind and she left it in DNA, a man and a woman," said Rep. Marie Parente, D-Milford. "I didn't create that combination, Mother Nature did.".
If gay marriage takes place in Massachusetts, federal lawsuits would likely ensue as gay couples seek recognition in other states and by the federal government. While state marriages are normally respected in other jurisdictions, 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage.
Massachusetts civil unions would convey many of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage but would only be recognized — conceivably — in Vermont, which enacted civil union legislation in 2000.
Adopted in 1780, the Massachusetts Constitution is the oldest still-governing written constitution in the world. It has been amended 120 times, most recently in 2000 when voters endorsed making the federal census the basis for legislative redistricting and stripping voting rights from incarcerated felons.
MA will have this atrocity overturned in the future, I have faith in the good people of that state.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
posted on February 11, 2004 08:06:10 PM new
Twelve, your attempt at trying to spread hatred is about as silly as you putting everyone on Ignore - on a discussion board.
posted on February 11, 2004 08:51:40 PM new
You can't really compare the rights of black and women with gays. You are born one color or one sex but you aren't born gay. That has never been proven. A scientist said he found the gene but later admitted that he lied. Everyone already has equal rights with the exception of marriage.
One thing that burns me is if anyone claiming to be a Christian and says they hate gays. Sin is sin period. We all have seeds of sin born in us as we are all born in sin. If you are born gay it is the only sin people are born with. God plainly states He hates sin regardless of what it is. He does say homosexuality is an abomination to Him but all sin is wrong regardless of what the specific sin is.
The only way it affects my life directly is when my grandchild sees a gay couple it makes them think homosexuality is right.
It comes down to whether you believe in what the Bible says or even believe in God. I know you have all probably heard it before but it is the truth "God hates the sin but loves the person". As Christians we are expected to do the same....not hate anyone.
posted on February 11, 2004 09:27:49 PM new
Kiara, I doubt real men would hang around a board full of people they can't stand, but I guess the purveyors of hate need somewhere to spout.
"The only way it affects my life directly is when my grandchild sees a gay couple it makes them think homosexuality is right."
posted on February 12, 2004 03:22:58 AM new
Governor Howard Dean Misunderstands
Origins Of Homosexual Behavior
by Dr. A. Dean Byrd
Presidential hopeful Dr. Howard Dean was recently quoted in the Washington Post as saying that, "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people," and "The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it [homosexuality]."
Dr. Dean's theological comment, while sounding compassionate, is a rather naïve view of homosexuality. Homosexual behaviors are fraught with serious mental health and physical consequences--all of which are well documented in scientific literature. One doesn't have to consider homosexuality to be sinful to understand that such behaviors places its participants at risk for mental/physical illnesses.
The fact is that a condition such as Down's Syndrome has a genetic component to it, but we do not consider this as a positive, life affirming physical state. Even if homosexuality were found to have a genetic basis, the mental/physical health consequences would still be present.
In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." Dr. Dean should be asked why he thinks homosexual behavior should be encouraged when this behavior so clearly endangers men's lives.
We have learned at NARTH that homosexuals can be helped through therapy to overcome unwanted homosexuality, with its elevated risk of both emotional and physical disorders. Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the psychiatrists who led the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the diagnostic manual, is now convinced that not only can homosexual behaviors be eliminated but that some individuals can experience a change in sexual orientation from predominantly homosexual to predominately heterosexual through the help of competent therapy. He has recently published a study that found that a homosexual orientation can be modified.
Dr. Dean's second statement is even more problematic than his flawed theological views on homosexuality. To say that there is "overwhelming" evidence that homosexuality has a "significant, substantial genetic" component is just the opposite of what the latest scientific research says.
In fact, even gay-activist researchers themselves, who have been desperately seeking a genetic element to homosexuality, have come up empty. Several of these researchers have openly admitted their failure.
My previously published article, "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis In Science--In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," quotes several of these researchers, including Drs. Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay. According to Hamer, "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. ... I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." Dr. LeVay says, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
Homosexual philosopher Camille Paglia is quite blunt in her assessment of the "born gay" theory: "No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous ... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. ..."
In short, Dr. Dean's comments are not only inaccurate, but pose serious consequences for the health and well-being of homosexual individuals who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions or who are engaged in sexual practices that can lead to increased morbidity and mortality rates.
A person who seeks the highest office in the land should be more responsible in his comments on a subject as controversial as homosexuality--should certainly be informed by the research. A commitment to the basic civil rights of self-identified gays and lesbians does not require a belief in the false notion that homosexuality is innate and immutable in all people. It is not.
Paws I am glad you are teaching your granddaughter that homosexuality is wrong, it is wrong and should not be tolerated any more than child abuse.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
posted on February 12, 2004 05:44:02 AM new
Isn't it amazing that when pushed in a corner about being hateful and wanting to harm and punish homosexuals people fall back on "It's for their own good."
Sorry I don't see concern for your fellow man making a bad choice here and a desire to steer him away from a course of self harm. I see naked hatred.
Now can we hear the recruitment ticket that they are all pedophiles and you have to supress them to protect your young?
posted on February 12, 2004 06:16:25 AM newPublic Backlash
But while courts may lend a sympathetic ear, this most recent giant leap forward for homosexuality has sparked a public backlash. A mid-December CBS/New York Times poll found that 61 percent of those polled were against homosexual “marriage,” up from 55 percent in July.
The percentage of respondents who believe homosexual relations should be illegal jumped to 49 percent--the highest number since 1992 and up from 39 percent in July. Fifty-five percent said they supported amending the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage.
Even in Massachusetts, where pro-homosexual sentiment is strong, a recent Zogby poll found that 52 percent of respondents think “only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal”; 42 percent disagreed.
Sixty-nine percent think voters should get the chance to decide on a constitutional marriage amendment, but respondents were almost evenly split in their support of an amendment. Forty-eight percent agreed that “marriage is such an important institution that it should be defined in our constitution as the union of a man and a woman.” Forty-nine percent disagreed.
Queers being "tolerated" is slipping daily... they should of kept their mouths shut and lived their deviant lifestyle in the closet or under that rock where it belongs...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
posted on February 12, 2004 06:57:12 AM new
Twelve, I have a question for you:
You still sell on ebay, right? Do you have a problem taking money from anonymous queers? Or do you have a TOS that states, queer buyers not wanted here?
posted on February 12, 2004 08:07:24 AM new
How would I know IFthey did not tell me?
Would I continue the transaction if they sent me an eMail say they are queer so and so... don't know hasn't happend yet.
Do I have a tos that says I won't sell to queers? no... and I probably wouldn't care about queers if they kept thier mouths shut and stayed under the rock they came from.
I usually don't mix personal feelings with business, we live in a World where money rules not right and wrong.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
