I now pronounce you wife and wife.

[benjita]

Originally Posted by cubbybear

Name one culture( not a country) primitive or civilized in which MARRIAGE is not between a male and a female. If you find one please provide a link.

Wasn't a guy legally forced to "marry" a pig because he fucked it?

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by ooda

And it's a common misconception that gay couples frequently engage in anal sex. From what I heard, mutual masturbation is the more in thing.

lolol good save! You added "From what I've heard".

[ooda]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

lolol good save! You added "From what I've heard".

As they say, loose lips sink ships.

[cubbybear]

Originally Posted by ooda

As they say, loose lips sink ships.

....and flap during sex!

[ooda]

Originally Posted by cubbybear

....and flap during sex!

[Mainiac]

Originally Posted by benjita

Okay, your first point isn't really valid. They aren't making homosexuality illegal, nor are they denying any rights that are currently available.

Right now, same-sex marriage is illegal. The reason they may never become "legal" is in the word "Marriage". Religious leaders feel threatened because of the term "Marriage". Their belief is that marriage throughout history has been between a man and woman, and feel that the "Sanctity" of "Marriage" as a historical and legal term would be violated by use of the word to describe a union between two people of the same sex.

The biggest problem I see is that homosexuals want to use the term "Marriage", because they want to be equal. The Religious Right believe the term "Marriage" to be sacred, and do not want to give up the word.

It's a vicious circle. The Religious Right have postured very well to ban civil unions in a vast majority of states by using "Marriage" as fuel to fire off enough votes to ban all "Civil Unions" (Note the more all-encompassing term to prevent ANY Gay union possibly infringing on a Man/Woman world).

The worst part is that while today's society is more diverse and more open (Fine, be a fag, I don't care), we're also a LOT more conservative than we were 20 years ago (but you can't take "Marriage" from us).

Think of it. If we let gays be "Married", then they've infringed on the "Sanctity" of the word. If we let them have "Civil Unions", then they'll want everybody to be considered "Civil Unions". My wife and I would be "Civilly United", not "Married". Sure, techinically it's all the same, but tell that to the Religious Right or the Liberal Left. I'm neutral. I wouldn't care either way. It's just a word, but some people take words seriously.

Oh and by the way.... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU!

Arent homosexuals equal under the constitution of this country? Arent we all equal?

So your point that the Religious Right (RR) want to deny marriage to people they view as immoral (per their beliefs) supports my argument that the RR in this country are trying to do as many nutty things as the Taliban in the middle east (killing falafel vendors because falafel are a Jewish food, killing men that wear goatees because goatees didnt exist in Mohameds time, harassing women that walk the streets without male escorts, getting women fired from their jobs, etc)

So the RR wants to deny same sex marriages (and abortions and Janets nipple on tv and any one enjoying sexual activity, etc) based on religious beliefs, which pretty much to me is the same MO as the Taliban. Different methods of course (terrorism vs. cash based influence and pandering to voters), but same nutty thinkingI believe this is what God wants me to make you do.

Which, ironically, is why my fore fathers left Europe.

[ooda]

A side note...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8614

[benjita]

Originally Posted by Mainiac

Aren’t homosexuals “equal” under the constitution of this country? Aren’t we “all” equal?

Yes, we are all "equal" under the Constitution of the United States of America. However, there is no mention of the word "Marriage", "Married", "Wedding", "Matrimony", "Partner", nor "Civil Union" in the ENTIRE document. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt)

Marriage is not a "right". You don't have to apply for "Rights". Sure, you have to register to vote, but that's only so you can get counted properly. All you have to do to get your vote is show that you are a U.S. Citizen, and they say OK. You have to apply for Marriage. In most states, it's a long process, sometimes even taking weeks. It's a license, much like your driver's license. There are many hurdles to jump through, more in some states than others. It's a legal union, a legal partnership. It's like opening a business together. And yes, some states have laws set in that can revoke a marriage license application.

Most of the recent laws have been to define "Marriage" to better clarify the law. Since it is not a "right" but more of a "privalege", based on a written law, if the law is clearly written or defined, then privalege can be granted to certain members and not others based on otherwise discriminatory criteria. For instance, you can be a blind person, and nobody can revoke your right to vote, but you can't drive a car. You can be 18 and say what you will, but you cannot drink.

Originally Posted by Mainiac

So your point that the Religious Right (RR) want to deny marriage to people they view as immoral (per their beliefs) supports my argument that the RR in this country are trying to do as many nutty things as the Taliban in the middle east (killing falafel vendors because falafel are a “Jewish” food, killing men that wear goatees because goatees didn’t exist in Mohamed’s time, harassing women that walk the streets without male escorts, getting women fired from their jobs, etc…)

What? These people threatening falafel vendors are not Taliban. You may have seen "Talibanization" being used by the press to compare them to the Taliban.

Originally Posted by Mainiac

So the RR wants to deny same sex marriages (and abortions and Janet’s nipple on tv and any one enjoying sexual activity, etc…) based on religious beliefs, which pretty much to me is the same MO as the Taliban. Different methods of course (terrorism vs. cash based influence and pandering to voters), but same nutty thinking…”I believe this is what God wants me to make you do”.

Which, ironically, is why my fore fathers left Europe.

Janet's Nipple has no place on Television. Indecent exposure is noted in laws, and public exposure of the female's nipple and areola, except for the purposes of breast-feeding is illegal in all states. National television is considered a public forum, and that is why the FCC has a ban on nudity. That will never be repealed. By "one enjoying sexual activity", I assume you refer to state and municipality laws regarding the public descriptions of sexual conduct and the selling or displaying of non-medical items whose purpose is the enhancement or stimulation of sexual pleasure. That's up to those particular regions, mostly in regions predominatly run by these RR people.

Again, you're arguing RR vs. Taliban. The Taliban's biggest criticism was that they revoked rights from women and non-Afghani people. The RR is not revoking any rights, see above. They ARE trying to prevent the privalege of marriage from being allowed to people that they believe do not properly fit the marriage mold. Sure both decisions are based on religion, but one places a woman in severe cultural retardation (illiteracy, inability to work, etc)., and the other does not make homosexuals into third-world people.

Sure, people opposed to gay marriage pumped a LOT of money into their campaign to ban gay marriage. That's America. If you want people's vote, you have to pander to them. You may even throw in a bit of misdirection (Here in Michigan, the commercials were to "Ban Gay Marriage", but the ballot was to ban ANY same-sex civil union). That's how people win elections. That's America, baby!

REMEMBER: I'm not opposed to Gay Marriage. I can, however, see both sides of the coin. The RR is not evil (Okay, maybe Shirley Phelps-Roper is, but...). Gays are people now (ha ha). The RR is not the Taliban (who really, after further research, aren't as bad as we cracked them up to be.)/

[william]

Originally Posted by benjita

Janet's Nipple has no place on Television. Indecent exposure is noted in laws, and public exposure of the female's nipple and areola, except for the purposes of breast-feeding is illegal in all states. National television is considered a public forum, and that is why the FCC has a ban on nudity. That will never be repealed.

Fucking Comstock and his everlasting influence on America.

Agreed with you, Benjita, on the letter of the law. Disagree on the law. Nudity should't be illegal.

Fucking ridiculous that at 10PM at night you can watch a show where someone gets shot but you cant see a nipple.

[benjita]

Originally Posted by william

Agreed with you, Benjita, on the letter of the law. Disagree on the law. Nudity should't be illegal.

Didn't say I agreed with the law, just that it won't get repealed. I wouldn't mind seeing titties and beer all day.

Except for those really droopy Mrs. Chokesondick tits. Those can stay covered.