If the opposition to gay marriage can not find a more reasonable voice than this it is doomed.
He sounds pathetic in his panic and makes no reasonable basis for his fears. He claims that extending the right to marry to homosexuals will destroy it for heterosexuals.
Excuse me? Why? Will the usual man/woman couples no longer marry because same sex couples do? Is normal marriage such an unattractive and weak institution that it will fall by the wayside?
He points out that marriage is a universal of all human cultures. Yes but he falsely implies that all the marriages in the world follow the same one man one woman formula and rights as is common in the US. In some countries you can have more than one wife or more than one husband. In some marriage more closely resembles ownership than partnership. Yet he is not in a state of panic that those forms are "destroying" marriage. In fact he sounds as if he thinks that by extending marriage to gays they are going to at the same time prohibit heterosexual marriage.
He sounds as terrified and foolish as club members that felt their clubs would be "ruined" by admitting women or people of (gasp) color.
They need to grow up and come down out of their tree fort and learn how to deal with someone who isn't exactly like them.
This is the sort of person that is supposed to direct a modern nation in a global society?
He doesn't sound like he could hold his own in a high school debate. It doesn't sound like he stopped and made any effort state a calm reasoned position - just unreasoned fear.
posted on July 10, 2003 01:23:25 PM new
Santorum strikes me as one of those guys that screams his hatred of homosexuals for decades then turns up in a hotel room with a teenage boy. His protestations are too desperate sounding. The more he yaps though the more credibility he loses and the more he damages the party so by all means ... Yap away!
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
posted on July 10, 2003 07:00:22 PM new
Hmmm, don't know how you came to those conclusions there Neon, but the man speaks for LOTS of Americans so I hope him and Senator Frist keep on with their quest to get a new admendment to the Constitution in place...
posted on July 10, 2003 07:17:18 PM new
Me thinks he does protest too much. I can't see how gay marriage can possibly hurt heterosexual marriages unless it's the fact that there will probably be less divorce among them making heterosexuals look bad. Why do people feel it necessary to push their values and beliefs on others? Why should what others do be so bothersome to you, 12? Nothing was said about it being okay for gays to marry as long as they come to live with you, was there? As far as I'm concerned there is only one real judge and somewhere in the Bible it says to love one another. It doesn't say only love those who believe as you believe. Isn't there enough hatred in the world?
So 12, are you saying if a man has a sex change and becomes a woman that the marriage would be okay if it were to a man? Or, should that man marry a woman since technically he was born a man? You did say marriage is between a man and a woman. Just curious how you feel about that scenerio since it happens. If you think of this man that has changed to a woman as still a man, then gays already get married. What about bi-sexuals? They engage in same sex relationships. They marry. They don't marry the same sex, but they still carry on with them.
How does any of this hurt you? Sorry if this is a confusing post. I think I've just confused myself.
posted on July 10, 2003 08:47:13 PM new
:: I hope him and Senator Frist keep on with their quest to get a new admendment to the Constitution in place... ::
Coming from someone that actually seems to understand and support that there are places that the government does not have a right to be I am bewildered that you express hope that marriage will someday be a federally legislated act.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the republicans the ones that generally endorse less government?
::Hmmm, don't know how you came to those conclusions there Neon, but the man speaks for LOTS of Americans::
LOTS? yes I do not doubt that however the ferver and hatred and underlying fear and paranoia that comes thru in his statements turn off moderates. Much to my dismay, my mother has become a republican. I happened to be talking to her today and brought up Santorum and his stance and comments curious as to what she thought of them. On this one we still agreed ... this guy is out to lunch.
The reason I say that he hurts the party is that they fail to distance themselves from his opinions. Yes there are some that are so homophobic and naive that they will will try anything to rid the world of gays, including trying to legislate them out of existance but most people are a little more accepting of that which is different than them and there are others that even though they do not support homosexuality, they stop short at legislating personal morality.
The Republican party is moving a little too far right for many people and seem to be woefully out of touch with the reality of the modern family.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
posted on July 10, 2003 08:49:19 PM new
Cheryl, that's a great post but I bet that nobody will be able to answer you because same sex marriages affects NOBODY.
posted on July 10, 2003 08:51:13 PM new
It is called TRADITION and not all TRADITIONS are bad, contrary to some others beliefs...
I don't want to hear the crap about "well Salvery was a tradition", no one posting on these boards has ever been involved with slavery...
and my key word is SOME
How do you know it won't hurt in the long run Cheryl, considering it has never been allowed...
... and men that become women... well they are just that now... women... why even bring that up... they are not homosexuals, but transgenders...
they want a relationship with the opposite sex of what they will be...
posted on July 10, 2003 09:19:03 PM new
I'm not gay. I have known lots of gay people, but I can't exactly say some of my best friends are gay. My son's horsemanship instructor at the camp he just returned from is a lesbian, who lives with her partner who is the swimming instructor. They have been together since my 20 year old first went to that camp when she was 9. She is the most remarkable horsewoman (or horseman) I have ever known, and I have known lots of them. Macho cowboys seek her advice all the time. I have known of old fashioned ranchers who loaded a problem horse onto a trailer and drove 200 miles to get her take on what to do. They know she's gay, and couldn't care less.Her sexual preference is not mine; I do not understand it, nor does it interest me. Her devotion to her partner is greater than most of the married couples I know, who are in large measure just going through the motions. Whether she is gay by choice or by natural design, I find it ridiculous that she and her partner are penalized by the government for an otherwise legal lifestyle. These are good people who should legally be allowed to proclaim their devotion to each other and be entitled to the civil benefits of such declarations. Being afraid of such people to the point of legislation is just stupid. Abberations, mutants, freaks of nature, so what. Who are they hurting by wanting the same civil rights as those who are not gay. We should never forget that there is a civil aspect to marriage, which exists wholly apart from the religious. It's the civil aspect these folks seek. Individual religions can do whatever they want. Again, who cares? I just can't believe it's such a big deal to some.
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
posted on July 10, 2003 09:33:42 PM new
12 "How do you know it won't hurt in the long run"
That's not what you said about the invasion of Iraq.
So anything 12 supports is right and anything he doesn't is left.
"Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the republicans the ones that generally endorse less government?"
No, not true, only if it serves their purpose.
Take 'tariffs' ‘subsidies’ and 'protectionism'.
Same, it's ok to give 'foreign aid' as long as they spend it with American entities.
But no!, that's not a subsidy.
And so we see Africans exporting cotton t-shirts to USA, but using cotton purchased from America!?!?!?, while the African superior-quality-cotton is left to rot, because it is ‘too-expensive’.
“no one posting on these boards has ever been involved with slavery.”
Perhaps not, but many still enjoy the fruits thereof.
It seems the right is anti-anything which doesn’t pad their OWN pocket.
posted on July 10, 2003 10:24:18 PM new
If you all agree that it's ok for a brother and sister to marry or a father and daughter to marry or a farmer and a sheep to marry, then I will agree that it's ok for two men or two women to marry.
I'm a tolerant person, but I draw the line at gay marriage.
posted on July 10, 2003 10:26:55 PM new
Twelve - but when did we start building laws around tradition. Remember, this is the same person that has also stated that he finds current divorce levels to be "unacceptable". Tradition dictates that one marries until death do you part. Since he not only wants to introduce legislation banning gay marriages, he also wishes to introduce another piece "afirming" traditional marriages, what happens when he decides to take his moral marital frever to the next step and decides that divorce should be outlawed. Where do you place that dividing line regarding the governments right to intercede in civil acts? How do you justify opening the door to such a thing, but only far enough to DENY a single law abiding demographic a number of rights giving freely to the rest of the general population (i.e. survivor benefits, tax status, etc)?
Do you honestly feel that it is our governments place to pass laws that specifically deny individuals rights and benefits based soley on a moral judgement? Isn't that moral judgement based on religious opinion and would such a law not spit in the face of the concept of our laws protecting our citizens from religious persecution?
Legalization of gay marriages is not going to change the number of homosexuals in our society, It is not going to "destroy the american family" ( a comment I generally find laughably naive since it refers to a sterotype that no longer represents the majority anyway), It is simply going to extend a civil right to the entirety of our population.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
posted on July 10, 2003 10:29:17 PM new
Ebayauctionguy - You have every right have a moral objection but can you give a LEGAL justification for denying them?
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
posted on July 10, 2003 10:30:50 PM new
If it is not such a big deal? Why do they care if they can be married? After all they have a commitment to their partners...
One thing I do love is the word "fear"... I have no "fear" of gays... they are freaks of nature... I have pity for them as I would a three headed calf or a dog with 2 heads... something to be pitied...
posted on July 10, 2003 10:42:57 PM new
Twelve - what is your legal basis for denying a civil right that is extended to the majority of our population?
The question is very simple and yet it is one that you never see or hear answered. In fact it is a question that is conscpiculously AVOIDED in much the same way you just did. People twist and turn, name call and denegrate and yet never seem to answer the question.
If two tax paying, law biding individuals in a legal relationship (not incestuous and both parties being of legal age) wish to join into a civil union which gives them certain legal rights otherwise unavailable to them, what is the legally justifiable reason for denying such a union?
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
[ edited by neonmania on Jul 10, 2003 10:43 PM ]
posted on July 10, 2003 11:04:03 PM newYou have every right have a moral objection but can you give a LEGAL justification for denying them?
I can't give a LEGAL justification for denying gays marriage but I also can't give a LEGAL justification for denying marriage between a farmer and a sheep.
posted on July 10, 2003 11:05:52 PM new
Ebayauctionguy
You need to work on your ethical priorities a little.
You 12 & bear & some others “claim to” take great offence in someone you don’t know sticking a little piece of meat into another’s inviting orifice (gays) while at the same time you are happy to support the killing of another nations people because it helps your economy.
Your type has clearly shown little other evidence to show other cause for the invasion of other nations and the murder of their people.
posted on July 10, 2003 11:07:47 PM new
Legal justification is already there, two members of the same sex may not marry...
Several states have passed laws explicitly not recognizing any gay marriage...
They are the ones wanting to change the laws that are already in place...
These Senators are just making sure that these laws are not erroded by being too "tolerant" of deviants...
Why is it that ebayauctionguy's question is dimissed so easily by you, but he has a valid point...
Why are you against incestuous relationships becoming legal? Could they not also be two tax paying inviduals law abiding in all repects except for their love for one another?
No different than gay marriage...
I wouldn't support that either btw... but still he brings up a point... you are choosing to support only one deviancy when there are others to choose from also...
Maybe Aunt Mabel wants to have a relationship with her Dalmation....
posted on July 10, 2003 11:15:39 PM new
A spouse has legal rights and financial responsibilities with regard to community property, taxes, job benefits, medical issues and ones final wishes. Granting civil recognition extends equal protection which should be the right of all.
Denying these rights is simply another form of discrimination.
posted on July 10, 2003 11:20:06 PM new
austbounty in this time... there are many birth control methods that make that statement moot now... including a vasectomy...
Oh and no I am no different than a man that does have a vasectomy, just didn't have to go through the pain
Social deviance is just that... it is not socially acceptable, it maybe "tolerated" but not acceptable.
posted on July 10, 2003 11:34:21 PM new
Not sure about the animal ‘thing’.
I think they are capable of showing great loyalty, and I’m sure we all agree that a stable relationship can be very desirable in these uncertain times.
posted on July 10, 2003 11:34:44 PM new
So in other words Twelve - you have no legal basis for denying these rights. - it is simply based on a moral prejudice.
Homosexual relationships have no legal taboo, that is what we are discussing. As usual, rather than deal with the actual arguement at hand you and EAG have decided that you will try to derail it with debates over incest and beastialty, both of which are irrelevent.
In your most recent statement you imply that you feel that homosexuals should not only be denied the legal benefits or marriage, in addition should be stripped of additional rights given to citizens of our country. I'm curious, what other rights do you think that they should be stripped of? And while you are at it, I'm curious as to what part of our constitution it is that you feel support the denial of equal rights based soley on sexual preference?
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
[ edited by neonmania on Jul 10, 2003 11:37 PM ]
posted on July 11, 2003 03:42:07 AM new
It isn't all about the act of getting married. There's more to it than that. The only right that gay couples have right now is to call themselves life partners. What happens when one of the life partners gets seriously injured in an accident? The other does not have the right to be notified at all or the right to see that partner in intensive care. What if that partner dies? The other does not have the right to the possessions they've worked together to acquire through the years. They don't have the right to make the funeral arrangements. If no will was left, they have no rights to anything. That partner would have to hope that the other partner's family has been accepting of that relationship. And you know what? Chances are that even if they were accepting of it, a majority of these families will rip everything away from the other partner. People act like idiots when someone dies and it becomes less about the loss of a loved one and more about who gets what.
They have no right to be on their partner's health care plan at work. They have no right to their partner's Social Security. Does that bother you? Are you thinking, "Good, saves the SS Admin. some money." Actually, by not allowing them to marry, the SS Admin is paying out more in Social Security benefits to them at retirement. Married couples receive less, which is why my grandfather lived with someone when my grandmother died. They didn't marry because it would have cut into their SS payments.
I'm in a similar situation here. I've been with my boyfriend for five years. We've been living together for four. He's been married twice and I'm a widow. We just don't want to do it again. Simple. Should he die tomorrow without a will, his greedy family will take everything. It will be up to me to prove what is actually mine. If he throws me out tomorrow, there's not much of anything I can do. I've paid into the mortgage, but the house is his. Common Law marriage does not exist in the state of Ohio. But, it's okay because this is what we chose. We can choose marriage tomorrow if we wanted to. But, gay partners cannot. They don't have that right.
The way I see it is that if you can deny one group even their basic civil rights, you can deny all groups their rights as well. It doesn't say much for your humanity, 12. I wonder if you have any.
Some of your posts are okay and some, like this one, make no sense to me at all.
posted on July 11, 2003 05:11:54 AM new
Neon please read... THE LAWS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE... what legal basis do you need?
Last time I looked a law as a legal basis...
Thank GOD for these Senators that are keeping the LAWS from being eroded...
Coming from someone that supports murder (Abortion) I am not surprised at your views on this...
I don't think they should be protected under any civil rights categories...
How about answering the question on another deviant behavior... incest... this has been asked twice now and seems like "we" are being selective about what deviant behaviors "we" are going to tolerate.
Don't tolerate any and you don't have that problem.
Austbounty, your reply is just as questionable... you immediately came back with the birth defect issue... so you equate marriage with procreation? If so, gays can't have children from their union... most that do have children get married to a straight person have the children, then "come out"...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jul 11, 2003 05:53 AM ]
posted on July 11, 2003 05:16:23 AM new
Cheryl, the reason some of my posts don't make sense to you, is because they don't go along with your wrong thinking....
I do have a great care of Humanity, I just don't consider deviants a part of that group...
