posted on March 6, 2004 06:52:46 PM new
Trying to get a date for your sister yellowstone?
Actually Kraft dear... you said that long before I put you on ignore for a week...
and ignore only works when logged in
What does sex have to do with it? Come on now... kraft said sex had nothing to do with the "love" so a person that loves their pet should be able to get married... a person who loves their sister/brother should be able to get married...
Male on little boy child molesting is queers gone wild... just like those queer priests that molested all those boys.
I only consider them pedophiles when they traget the opposite sex...
posted on March 7, 2004 01:00:08 PM new
What I don't understand is why all of a sudden the breeders want to protect what they call marriage. There have been gays and polygamists since ancient Egypt.
Why now. Is it because they feel threatened?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on March 7, 2004 02:21:00 PM new
logansdad - You asked a couple of questions, I'm going to answer it, but I'm not going to argue about it.
What I don't understand is why all of a sudden the breeders want to protect what they call marriage.
Because there is a NEED to protect it now. Where there wasn't before. A very small minority [gays/lesbians] of our population are pushing their agenda on us.
I'm no longer able to 'breed' LOL but I have always valued the institution of marriage, think it's very important to the stability of our nation and to our children. And as you know, I want that tradition respected and left just as it has been since our nation began. One woman, one man...no combinations...whatever they may be.
There have been gays and polygamists since ancient Egypt. We're not talking about what happens in other countries. We talking about what's happening in the U.S.
Why now. Is it because they feel threatened? Think I answered that above.
posted on March 7, 2004 03:24:28 PM new
You feel threatened because breeders have ruined marriage via divorce and now you have the a group to blame it on.
I know more gay couple that have been in monogamous relationships for at least 15 years than I know straight couples. Perhaps the breeders should ask why they want to hold onto their "tradition" when it doesn't mean squat to them anymore.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 7, 2004 03:30:01 PM new
Logansdad, I fully support your position, as you know. However, using a term like "breeder" when referring to heterosexuals is not only beneath you, it does nothing to win people to your POV. Those who do have sympathy for your position are put off by it. You might want to reconsider the use of it.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 7, 2004 03:46:41 PM new
I don't think it's that bad of a word, Bunni. Being childless, I've often used it to describe women who don't stop having babies. Sure, it's a slang, but so is queer and gay. Just my opinion.
posted on March 7, 2004 04:21:24 PM new
I am curious as to when people were comparing queer sexuality to the animal kingdom?
I have been meaning to ask... if in fact that there are queer acting animals, then it is easy to surmise that queers have not evolved as far as heterosexuals and therefore are inferior...
after we have evolved as a species well above those of animals and to imitate a specie of animal would make that group a subspecies...
All that being if you follow the evolutionary route and not the Biblical route...
posted on March 7, 2004 05:20:45 PM new
Logansdad, I fully support your position, as you know. However, using a term like "breeder" when referring to heterosexuals is not only beneath you, it does nothing to win people to your POV. Those who do have sympathy for your position are put off by it. You might want to reconsider the use of it.
Sorry bunnicula if you have taken offense to the term "breeder" but I hate having to be a called: #*!@, queer, deviant. I could list at least another 5 terms used to describe gays. How would you feel if you were subjected to hate and riddicule for something you have no control over? I am sorry if you feel offended by the only derogatory word the gay community has for straight people.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 7, 2004 05:31:13 PM new
Linda:
ecause there is a NEED to protect it now. Where there wasn't before. A very small minority [gays/lesbians] of our population are pushing their agenda on us.
Here is that term again - agenda. There was no agenda except for equal rights. It wasnt the gay community that pushed this to the point where it is today. It is the government who made this an issue. It started with the DOMA and grew as each state passed anti same sex marriage laws. These actions left the gay community no choice but to stand up an take action.
I'm no longer able to 'breed' LOL but I have always valued the institution of marriage, think it's very important to the stability of our nation and to our children. And as you know, I want that tradition respected and left just as it has been since our nation began. One woman, one man...no combinations...whatever they may be.
I can accept your reason, but why are there no activits/politicians crying out about divorce, spouses cheating on each other, unwed parents having children, goofy TV shows like the Bachelor or "Married by America". If people within the straight community are so concerned about marriage and what impact it would have on kids, they should start doing a better job of policing their own instead of worring about another group of people
There have been gays and polygamists since ancient Egypt. We're not talking about what happens in other countries. We talking about what's happening in the U.S.
Yes the United States. Where we know what is best of the entire world. As we have already discussed there are countries that have allowed gay marriages and I don't see there socities going to he**
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 7, 2004 06:05:42 PM new
logansdad -
an agenda = A list of things to be done - a program.
Just as with the link on the other thread....it pointed out that there are some who support your cause because they see it as a way to promote theirs. Both are agendas, imo. All making the traditional meaning/description of marriage obsolete, unimportant, having no value.
why are there no activits/politicians crying out about divorce, spouses cheating on each other, unwed parents having children, goofy TV shows etc".
There are. Take a look at our President. Why do you think so many support his program(s)? Because they judge he's working for the values they support.
Pastors council troubled marriages, Church people do things that support marriages/family, couples work to help other families in crisis, couples help by giving their time to marriages that are struggling, to couples BEFORE they marry, giving them support.
People do speak out about what's on TV, in the media, etc. And many politicans support marriages/families in bills they pass. There are quite a few online sites that support marriage too.
If people within the straight community are so concerned about marriage and what impact it would have on kids, they should start doing a better job of policing their own instead of worring about another group of people.
Policing??? lol I don't think it's a matter of 'policing' but rather supporting....and that is going on.
Yes the United States. Where we know what is best of the entire world. You're going a little over board, imo. We're only speaking to issues/changes that are either going to be made, or not going to be made in the US.
As we have already discussed there are countries that have allowed gay marriages and I don't see there socities going to he**
Well.....see there....not everyone sees that the same way you do. As from my link, it's clear some very much see that added to the 'trend'/continue the already ongoing devaluation of marriage....and don't want it to happen here too.
posted on March 8, 2004 07:09:23 AM newThere are. Take a look at our President. Why do you think so many support his program(s)? Because they judge he's working for the values they support
Name one specific program (other than his proposed consitutional amendment) that Bush has presented and passed to get straight married couples to start valuing their marriage.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 8, 2004 10:33:43 AM new
logansdad - I said: Why do you think so many support his program(s)? Because they judge he's working for the values they support.
If you hold the position that this President doesn't support marriage family and hasn't done a lot to support families, then I don't know what to tell you. [shaking my head here] He's always talking about it's importance.
He does in every way possible....value the institution of marriage.
And much legislation has been passed to make life easier/better for families. They are, after all, his base supporters.
The biggest area I can think of are his tax cuts, which affect almost every family.
He has promoted school vouchers so parents can take their children out of failing schools.
He has expanded the Amber Alert
He has iniated more welfare reform to help families achieve/obtain self independence.
The Medicare bill for our elderly family members.
He has raised tax credits for children.
No Child Left Behind also comes to mind.
He has helped people obtain their dream of buying a home....and with the low interest rates in over 40 years, many families have refinanced and have lower mortage payments.
He has increased the tax deduction to help with the cost of families adopting children.
He has worked towards increasing funding to faith-based organizations that help families in different types of crisis.
He has eliminated the marriage tax, reduced estate taxes, increased the allowed maximums on education ira's.
His tax plan has lowered the tax % rates for a lot of families.
And the list goes on and on.
Whether people agree with changing our Constitution or not, I think by saying he'd sign a bill to promote marriage, that's a HUGE statement all by itself.
Re-elect President Bush!!
edited to add this article from Boston.com:
Bush seeks $1.5b to back marriages
By Mary Leonard, Globe Staff, 1/15/2004
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's election-year proposal to promote "healthy marriages" is aimed at pleasing social conservatives, who want the White House to take an unequivocal stand against gay unions, and is also aimed at married voters, who by wide margins favor Republicans and tend to support traditional values, political analysts say.
The White House said yesterday the president's 2005 budget would raise the amount earmarked for marriage promotion to $1.5 billion over five years in the pending legislation to renew the 1996 welfare law.
In 2002, the president proposed $1 billion in federal funds over five years for state programs to encourage marriage and discourage out-of-wedlock births among the poor.
The US House passed that measure, including the funds for marriage promotion, last year, but the full Senate has not yet acted on the welfare bill.
posted on March 9, 2004 07:02:53 AM new
Other than his proposed funding to support marriage, I dont see how the other programs support the "traditional definition of marriage"
Tax cuts were given to almost every American, whether married or single.
Vouchers while they help children get an eductation does not doing anything to support "the sanctity of marriage"
I dont see how the Amber Alert supports his traditional view of marriage. Yes it helps find missing kids but that is all it does.
Tax cuts and medicare reform while they help parents and the eldery have more income it does nothing to support the "sanctity of marriage"
Interest rates are so low because the economy stinks right now so people can afford a home. How does buying a home have anything to do with "the tradditional role of marriage"
I am not denying the above items help families make end meet, but they do nothing to strengthen "marriage". You can give tax credits and more education to children, but if a husband and wife can not get along and learn to solve problems, children will continue to suffer. You can do all this, but if children see shows like the Bachelor or their parents getting a divorce, it will not strengthen their view of marriage.
Right now his "marriage funding proposal" is just that a proposal. He is doing that as a campaign promise, nothing more.
If Bush wants to promote marriage he needs to stand up and tell the straight community, divorce, shows like the Bachelor, spouses cheating on each other are the items that are weakening "the sanctity of marriage".
Children learn from their parents. If children think marriage is a joke, then they will not take marriage seriously and the divorce rate in this country will continue to climb.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 9, 2004 08:40:58 AM new
logansdad - I gave you what you asked for - ONE bill that supports marriages. The bill is for an INCREASE in funding...not a new proposal.
If you don't see President Bush's TAFN support, which is working towards keeping people from having children out of wedlock waiting until they are married, as support of marriage - then you've got your eyes closed.
Children learn from their parents. I agree. And the more and more homes where children are being raised with single parents, as opposed to two parents, the more they see that as 'normal' and they and our society become more accepting of it. The cycle continues whether that is the best environment or not. [studies show it's not] So less importance is given to the institution of marriage because they were raised that way.
Just like it does when a child is raised on welfare....continues the cycle...sometimes for many generations. They were raised that way so they accept it as being 'normal'. When living on government assistance isn't what most strive for in America. It's not the 'norm'.
You can continue to blame the shortcomings of marriage all you want. The fact remains that many still choose to marry. Those who divorce usually choose to try again - remarry. And since gays/lesbians seem to think it is so important that they be allowed to marry, it's obvious to me they too consider it an important institution.
I think I've been very clear, over and over and over again, that many people, including myself, are fighting against this agenda because we feel it will cause further decline of the traditional family and its importance to our nation and our society. Just like all those living together, having children out of wedlock, etc already has.
posted on March 10, 2004 11:59:18 AM new
I am not in the least be interested in queer sex in hte naimal kingdom...
Obviously the point was to much for your inferior mind...
If you are saying that because the animal kingdom has queer sex it is ok for humans, then you are saying that queers have not evolved beyond animals and therefore are inferior.
posted on March 10, 2004 01:26:32 PM new
If you would have read the article a little more it also says "straight sex" is based off animal behavior or did you happen to miss that point.
So based on what you have said straights have not evolved beyond animals and are also inferior.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 10, 2004 03:51:07 PM newGay Republicans to run ad urging defeat of Bush-backed amendment
(03-10) 08:32 PST WASHINGTON (AP)
A group of gay Republicans who supported President Bush in 2000 will air a television ad opposing a Bush-backed constitutional amendment that would prohibit gays from marrying.
The 30-second spot by the Log Cabin Republicans shows Vice President Dick Cheney at a debate four years ago saying, "People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into." The ad begins Thursday in several states.
The vice president also says: "I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area." The words "We agree" then flash on the screen.
Cheney said last week that he supports the
president, even though one of his daughters, Mary, is gay.
posted on March 10, 2004 04:35:46 PM new
twelve - Just like with everything there are those in different groups who see the issue differently. ie: not *all* blacks vote the dem ticket....not all Christians vote for republicans, not *all* gays fight for the right to marry.
I've seen some interviewed myself who spoke out against this cause. Saying they feel it's causing more harm than good, creating a backlash towards them as a whole.
I hope it will not result in violence. I believe we can get this constitutional amendment passed.....if enough really want it passed.
posted on March 10, 2004 04:54:06 PM new
According to an ABC poll, when asked,
"Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S., or should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage?"
A majority was against amending the U.S. Constitution. They wanted states to make laws.
posted on March 10, 2004 05:49:41 PM new
Helen the states have made laws... and you see how well that is working.
Linda, I seriously doubt that any violence will take place against queers, that would be like cutting of the rattle of a rattler... you have to take out the head...
I hope it doesn't come to that either... it will take time to see how this turns out.
posted on March 11, 2004 02:10:47 PM new
Helen the states have made laws... and you see how well that is working
Yes it is not working. Lawmakers passed those laws based on what they felt at the time. People's opinions change over time - wether it be a year or 50 years. People may not want the laws on the books now. Laws can be created that are unconstitutional.
If the Massachusettes court would have said "civil unions" were enough, this entire debate would be a non issue - at least for now.
Some laws should be left up to the state to decide while other should be left up to federal government. This particular situation should have been decided at the federal level. I do agree with others on here that it will be ultimately up to the US Supreme Court to decide.
The US people elected Gore as President in 2000, but with the great electoral system we have in this country Bush was declared the winner.
If memory serves me correct there was a big debate about changing the election system after what happened in 2000. Almost four years later and nothing has changed. It was forgotten about until the next time it happens.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
posted on March 11, 2004 06:25:21 PM new
Meanwhile each state is going to go over their constitutions and add a marriage amendment if need be...
And why do you think Massachussettes is trying to do that after their courts said gays should be allowed to marry...because it would be discrimination otherwise.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
