Rosie gets married

[45Hawken]

I prefer to think of this genetic thing as an overall obsesive gene. Some people people manifest it in alchohol, some overeat, some have compulsive sex. Any of the other behaviors people are taught they can control their compulsive urges, but if it's gay sex, somehow it is beyond your control.

 

[Toonces]

45,

You may be right, you may also be wrong. It just seems to me that certain homosexuals do have manifest physical characteristics that would lead a reasonable observer to conclude they are homosexual. I agree that in some cases homosexuality is a probably a choice (although why anyone would make that decision escapes me). I believe in others, there is no choice.

As I stated before, a Constitutional Amendment is a very drastic step. If it were to happen we would be forever relegating certain people in our society to a lessor status in the eyes of the law based perhaps on factors beyond their control. The thought of this makes me exceedingly uncomfortable.

 

[1_pointer]

Is all this just posturing from Bush to regain some support from the staunch conservatives that he has (may have?) lost with the illegal immigrant issue and spending like he's got a stolen credit card? I thought the conservatives were the ones against government involvement in our lives? Plus, I'm not sure it would be ratified by the needed number of states(38?).

With regards to Christianity being the foundation of our laws, who's version do we use? Some don't allow women to wear make up. Some allow multiple wives per husband. If it's just Christianity as the Bible describes it why do we need any more laws than those that cover the 10 Commandments? Plus, there's a few different interpretations of the Bible.

IMO, it's still much ado about nothing. I'd like to know how many people against gay marriage because of it's threat to the sanctity/institution of marriage have been married more than once? How many wives has Rush had? I'm married now and will always be married to her. Someone else getting married, whether gay or not, does nothing to MY marriage.

 

[pawclaws]

"I don't know what "normal" is, but I am fairly certain "normalcy" is not a viable standard for jurisprudence, at least not in a society that purports to value individual rights and diversity. " Toonces the entire judicial system is based on "normal." A man can not stand trial unless he knows the difference between ___ and ___. (Fill in the blanks,) Now, determine the definition of the words that go in the blanks and you have defined "normal." So then if it is a genetic trait, as you described above, then something has gone "wrong?" Then obviously the same premis holds true for pedofiles, bigamists, polygamists, sadists, rapists, thieves, murderers, cannibals, and Limburger cheese lovers. By the way guys; wish you would quit bringing up the Roman man boy love thing. You are providing too much support for Toonces' genetics theory! )

 

[GLW]

So did BI-SEXUALS only get half the gene?

Sick joke by God?

Like walking into an Asian meat market,"Oh the choices are endless!"

 

[1_pointer]

A man can not stand trial unless he knows the difference between ___ and ___. (Fill in the blanks,) Now, determine the definition of the words that go in the blanks and you have defined "normal."

Say that a person answers that question to the satisfaction of the court, but they have 6 toes. Are they still normal?

 

[Oak]

On all our monies everything from a penny to a promisary note there is a saying " in god we trust" so should we take that off the monies to make the minority happy?

Yes. Now you're getting it.

Why is it the minority gets thier way changed and the majority has to sit back and have it flaunted in there faces?

I'm not exactly following you here. What exactly is being "flaunted" in the face of the majority??

Many of you seem to be confusing equal rights with special rights. How would laws allowing gays to be married give them more rights than you or I? We have the right to marry. I guess I just can't seem to follow your logic here...help me out.

Chambo, glad to see you're alive. I guess your e-mail address isn't working, eh?

Oak

 

[Toonces]

Paws,

With the exception of possibly polygamists, the laundry list of deviants you decribe are only deviants because their actions create a definable victim. Whether a rapist is a rapist because of genetics or choice is irrelevant when there is a victim.

Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults to rapists or pedaphiles is nonsense regardless of whether it is nature or nurture that binds that relationship.

The law in this country is not about "normalcy", never has been. Generally the law is about balancing individual freedom against the common good. When the common good has no compelling reason to infringe upon individual freedom, it should not. When it does have compelling reason it should only infringe to the extent necessary to satisfy that specific reason and no more.

There was a time where segregated schools, bans on interacial marriage, woman lacking the vote, etc, were all considered "normal".

 

[45Hawken]

Should we legalize prostitution? It's sex between to consenting people? How about animals? Those who love them would swear they consented.

 

[JoseCuervo]

AOL has a poll going on "How Divided is America"

How divided is America over social issues?
Deeply -- more than I've ever seen it 48%
Somewhat -- but I'm not sure it's a full-blown cultural war 35%
Not very -- some at each extreme distort the situation 17%

How strongly will social issues factor into your vote this fall?
Very 65%
Somewhat 24%
Not at all 12%

Total Votes: 94,404

Now all the normal disclaimers should be applied to these results, not a valid sample, as participants self-identified themselves. AOL users are not representative of the USA, as a whole, blah blah blah....

But what it does show, is nearly 100k people responded, and nearly 85% of the people think it is Somewhat or Deeply divided. And 2/3 of them will vote in a manner that is a result of this division.

Based on reading this thread, I would concur. And Bush and his Ammendment ideas are only serving to further divide the country.

No great healer in Bush, just the Great Divider .....

 

[cjcj]

Hey Gunner! keep it real, were not in court[i concur]

 

[hogwild]

Colorado Oak,

This is apparently what you missed from my previous post:

I could really care less about Dubya and what all the polictical hubbub this is causing.

You assumed that because I spoke of God in regards to this discussion that I support Bush in the Constitutional amendment. I made no reference to the need for a Constitutional amendment.

Elkgunner,

This nation was divided when Clinton was in office.

No need to respond to this post, I am out of this debate...or dodging it...whatever.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by hogwild:

Elkgunner,

This nation was divided when Clinton was in office.

Well, 48% think it is even more divided than Clinton years. So that might make you in the Minority. You better be careful, as you never know where Dubya and his gang might want to make some ammendment to limit your rights....

Ohhhh, but wait, that "political hubub" won't affect you, as long as you can keep telling your brother, neighbor, etc... that what they do in their personal life is an affront to you.

 

[hogwild]

whatever. They don't like my "earful" (meaning I will talk their ear off about it) , but they don't see it as a "personal" affront (insult). I try to make sure they do not think I think any less of them, but I do have my beliefs and will not apologize for them. I just stay away from the legalities of the subject. You seem to have a bigger problem with my opinion than they do.

Thank you for pointing out that my opinion and beliefs are so much lower than yours.

Bye.

[ 03-01-2004, 22:44: Message edited by: hogwild ]

 

[FLIPPER]

I dated a lesbian once...and it is truly sad to be dumped for another woman.

 

[GLW]

Shucks Brian, aren't we all lesbians?

I have mixed emotions about these issues because I had an aunt, God rest her soul, that was lesbian and her mate is like my best friend to this day. Would I trust her with my children both physically and spiritually? 100%

I don't believe in the marriage deal I guess because of religious reasons.

Do I agree with them living together in harmony, sure. So long as they just be happy with the way they are and not persist to make changes in our society to justify their means.

 

[beardown]

Wow it looks like Dubya acheived what he wanted, get everybody talking about something he cant do anything about and quit talking about the real issues he can do something about. For Dubya to make a constitutional ammendment it would take a two-thirds vote in both houses. As it stands he could'nt even get two-thirds of the republicans vote on this issue. So all this was is a big smoke screen and a way for Dubya to kiss the Christians Ass.

 

[pawclaws]

"There was a time where segregated schools, bans on interacial marriage, woman lacking the vote, etc, were all considered "normal". ... and each and every aspect Toonces was written into "law"!

I really like your statement about "the law" being a tradeoff between individual rights and the common good. There may be a "quill" in your future yet! Elkgunner; got any idea what the profile of "the typical or most representative AOL user" would look like. I would guess there would be a multipolar spectrum of stratum driven by unencumbered computer terminal access within educational facilities, corporate users, high end professionals, and a very small number of private users. I'm thinking that age distribution would also be driven by these strata. How do you think the opportunity of freedom to complete the survey would bias the results? You think we could talk the Moose into setting up an identical survey here and do a comparison?

 

[BHR]

I believe this is a State's Right's issue and a Federal Amendment is not neccessary. If enough fruitcakes in a particular state deem it OK to have same sex marriage, marry a dog or goat, marry multiple partners, or even kids, it's OK with me. It should be up to the will of the people to decide what is acceptable, and I have full confidence that the states (even California) will prevail in deciding what IS the will of the people.

If Wyoming citizens decide that the wolves should be classified as preditors, so be it. If Texans want to hunt behind a fence, so be it. If Californian's want to allow Rosie to marry so be it.

My advise to liberals is to pick your battles and pick them well. One of these day's you will find out which straw was the last. Till then, keep pushing.

Paul

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I agree that we do not need such an amendment to the Constitution, nor would one get ratified. The requirements to amend the Constitution are pretty tough to achieve (rightly so) and pretty much ensure state's rights.

I keep hoping that the liberals in California have finally gone too far - spent us into the poor house, depleted all reserves, huge deficits, etc. We'll see what happens next election, and if Boxer gets re-elected to the Senate. At least she is more vulnerable than Feinstein.