| Author |
Message |
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
 Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:48 pm House Defeats Gay Marriage Ban Amendment |
|
| Quote: | Sep 30, 5:38 PM EDT
House Defeats Gay Marriage Ban Amendment
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-controlled House emphatically defeated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday, the latest in a string of conservative pet causes pushed to a vote by GOP leaders in the run-up to Election Day.
The vote was 227-186, far short of the two-thirds needed for approval on a measure that President Bush backed but the Senate had previously rejected.
"God created Adam and Eve, He didn't create Adam and Steve," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., on behalf of a measure that supporters said was designed to protect an institution as old as civilization itself.
President Bush earlier this year asked Congress to vote on the amendment, and Democrats contended that in complying, Republicans were motivated by election-year politics.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, accused GOP leaders of "raw political cynicism" and said they hoped to "create the fodder for a demagogic political ad."
Whatever the motivation, there was no disagreement that the amendment lacked the two-thirds majority needed to pass, just as it failed by a lopsided margin in the Senate earlier this year.
The debate on the gay marriage ban amendment came a day after the House voted 250-171 to overturn a 28-year municipal ban on handgun ownership in the District of Columbia. And last week, Republicans forced a vote on legislation to protect the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenge. It passed, 247-173.
While both of those measures face uncertain prospects in the Senate, they appeal to voting groups whose support Republicans are counting on in the Nov. 2 elections. Recent surveys in battleground states in the presidential race indicate roughly one-quarter of Bush's supporters say moral or family values are uppermost in their minds.
The gay marriage amendment said marriage in the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman." It also would have required that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Even among majority Republicans, the issue generated dissent.
Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was the principal speaker on behalf of the measure, taking a role that is almost always reserved for the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction. In this case, though, the leadership bypassed the Judiciary Committee, and GOP officials said the panel's chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., made clear he wanted no part of the debate. His spokesman did not immediately return a call on why he took that position.
DeLay said the need for congressional action was "forced upon us by activist judges trying to legislate from the bench." He noted that under 1996 legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, marriage is defined as between a man of a woman.
"One would think this would be the end of the story. But it is not," DeLay said. The law is "under an incessant and coordinated attack in the federal courts," where he said judges feel a greater "responsibility to their own political ideology than the Constitution."
"The limitations of traditional marriage rest not on an intent to discriminate, but on what is most beneficial for society and children as evidenced by volumes of social science research," added Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo.
"Traditional marriage is worth preserving, because the nuclear family is far and away the best environment in which to raise children. Every child deserves both a father and a mother," said Musgrave, whose persistent advocacy for the measure has gained her national notice unusual for a first-term lawmaker.
Critics saw it differently.
"We feel love and we feel it in a way different than you," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly gay. "We feel it with someone of the same sex, male or female, and we look at your institution of marriage and we see the joy it brings. How do we hurt you when we share it?"
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. quoted Vice President Dick Cheney - who has a gay daughter - as saying, "The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society and freedom means freedom for everybody."
"You are on the wrong side of history," he said to the measure's supporters. "It is wrong to take a beautiful institution like marriage and use it as an instrument of division."
Public polls show strong opposition to gay marriage, but opinion is about evenly divided regarding a federal constitutional amendment to ban it.
At the same time, voters in 11 states will decide the fate of proposed amendments to their state constitutions this fall, and opponents of bans on gay marriage concede they will be difficult to stop.
� 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
Finally something good is happening this is a push in the right way for everyone.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:01 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Finally something good is happening this is a push in the right way for everyone. |
I disagree. This is another horrible outcome of not letting the folks decide about Gay Marriage across the country, and it's a great loss to the fight for goodness and protecting marriage. This is not good, and our leaders in Congress (Republicans) are not doing what they should do, like the Democrats, because of politics. Put politics aside for this--do the right thing.
And Jeff, did you not know that the Senate voted to put down an amendment like that too?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:09 pm |
|
>.< Oi. I agree with RM. TERRIBLE loss on the marriage and morals front.
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:20 pm |
|
I know people aren't happy with it but I think everyone derseves equal rights. Its like saying that RM can't be a member of this forum because hes overly annoying (Not saying you are) and for that you can't join. I just think everyone is equal.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:22 pm |
|
| Jeff Miller wrote: | | I know people aren't happy with it but I think everyone derseves equal rights. Its like saying that RM can't be a member of this forum because hes overly annoying (Not saying you are) and for that you can't join. I just think everyone is equal. |
No, this is different. First of all, you're discrimitating against one single person there.
Second of all, there is great reason to be anti-Gay Marriage, and most Americans DO see that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:23 pm |
|
No its the same thing you wouldn't like it if you were being discriminated for no reason its the same with same sex couples no one has any real reasons for saying they can't marry.
-------signature-------
| ~Tony Montana wrote: | | You know what you need people like me people for you to snub your nose at and point at saying there is a bad man. Well guess what This bad man is leaving. Say goodnight to the BAD MAN! |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:26 pm |
|
| Jeff Miller wrote: | | No its the same thing you wouldn't like it if you were being discriminated for no reason its the same with same sex couples no one has any real reasons for saying they can't marry. |
Okay, we DO have good and "real" reasons, and I've displayed those MANY times before.
1. Changing of the definition of marriage
2. Changing the tradition that has been around for so long
3. Protecting the sanctity of marriage
4. If we allowed Gay Marriage, then we would have to allow triads and more than one wife or husband, etc.
So don't tell me there are NO GOOD REASONS FOR THIS, and that it is ANYTHING like saything that I can't be on the forums, because that's just not true.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:31 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Okay, we DO have good and "real" reasons, and I've displayed those MANY times before.
1. Changing of the definition of marriage |
There is no True definition of marriage, there is only a man made definition that has been changed more then once.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | 2. Changing the tradition that has been around for so long |
Same sex couples have been around just as long. Tradition means nothing.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | 3. Protecting the sanctity of marriage |
That's another way of saying the definition of marriage. But people cant find anything else to say so they say this like it's a totaly different concept.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | 4. If we allowed Gay Marriage, then we would have to allow triads and more than one wife or husband, etc. |
No, that's just your personal feelings leading you away from the truth.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:32 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Okay, we DO have good and "real" reasons, and I've displayed those MANY times before.
1. Changing of the definition of marriage
2. Changing the tradition that has been around for so long
3. Protecting the sanctity of marriage
4. If we allowed Gay Marriage, then we would have to allow triads and more than one wife or husband, etc.
So don't tell me there are NO GOOD REASONS FOR THIS, and that it is ANYTHING like saything that I can't be on the forums, because that's just not true. |
Those are very similar to the reasons that Black people weren't considered citizens, or even women. White men would argue that it would:
1. Change the definition of a "person", something fundemental.
2. Change the tradition that has been around for so long (white men make the decisions).
3. If we allow women to vote, then we might have to allow Black people to vote . . . where would it end?
Gay Marriage is just another step in social evolution toward the good. Firstly, we're not dealing with allowing gay marriage will allow triads, et cetera. We are talking about the issue of the marriage of one man to another man, or one woman to another woman.
People have always resisted change by stating that tradition forbids it. Well, I don't see a lot of people throwing away computers, hanging people, or putting garlic about their necks. There's tradition, and then there is change.
Maybe a nation-wide referendum is the way to go, maybe it isn't. The point is, if you're arguing the marriage is the province of the people and not something the government decide, then there cannot be a ban on gay marriage. That would mean the government would have decided it.
So the government was doing the right thing by striking down a ban on gay marriage--since the only legitimate ban on gay marriage, according to your arguments, is if it comes from the people.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:17 pm |
|
Yeah, I have to totally agree with the above. This is definitely a good thing.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Sam Kenobi
Not a Duke
Joined: 13 Jun 2003
Posts: 10373
Location: The 'Verse
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:56 pm |
|
I agree with RM all the way. This country was founded on Christian ideals, and I believe those ideals and morals need to stay intact. He's right, once this is allowed, then anything else will have to be allowed. A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
And as for equal rights, everyone in the world is discriminated in his or her own way. Calling this discrimination is ripping everyone else who is discriminated against off.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:30 pm |
|
It's a moral opinion, guys. If you think that gay is proper, that it's natural, then you'll support marriage. I cannot advocate something that is against my beliefs. I don't treat gays as different socially, but I don't agree with them, and they are not candidates for marriage in my mind.
Some may forget--this is a technicallity. Religiously, gays CAN marry. It's the matter of government recognition we're talking about here. We're not taking away anyone's religious rights.
|
|
|
Sam Kenobi
Not a Duke
Joined: 13 Jun 2003
Posts: 10373
Location: The 'Verse
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:38 pm |
|
well, ok. I agree with you. I don't like to treat gays either, I used to have one in my extended family. But... like, I don't know about anywhere else, but here it's like they want to be treated differently, and when we do, they get mad. That's the problem of discrimination, no one ever wins.
Wait, clarify for me (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic). I thought that homosexuality was a sin in the eyes of (the Christian) God, as it goes against the natural order that He created for us.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:45 pm |
|
Last edited by Puck on Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:38 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:45 pm |
|
| Triam_Paris wrote: | well, ok. I agree with you. I don't like to treat gays either, I used to have one in my extended family. But... like, I don't know about anywhere else, but here it's like they want to be treated differently, and when we do, they get mad. That's the problem of discrimination, no one ever wins.
Wait, clarify for me (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic). I thought that homosexuality was a sin in the eyes of (the Christian) God, as it goes against the natural order that He created for us. |
*shrugs* My best friend is bisexual. She's vividly aware of what I think, and she still doesn't want to be treated differently, so I don't. I agree; no one wins in discrimination, but I don't see it as discrimination when you're talking about the definition of something. If marriage isn't defined as man and woman, like RM said--WHERE DOES IT END? Can I marry my chair if I'm in love with it? 
Yes, it is a sin in the Christian religion. (Most of them--I'm non denominational-Christian, I can't speak for all of them) However, it is FAR from the unforgivable sin, and God does NOT hate homosexuals. Religion shouldn't be drug into this again, though, in my opinion. I'm all for involving your beliefs--you have to. But this makes for an argument that you can't win with an atheist who can't agree with you because of their beliefs. I think it's a danger to moral standards, because it is not natural, I think biology makes that pretty clear.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:14 am |
|
No, you can't marry your chair. I'm pretty sure that the definition of marriage will stop at "sentient beings". Unless you can prove that your chair is sentient, you're limited to humans, aliens, dolphins, and hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings that are disguised as white mice. 
So why should it stop? I'm not advocating polygamy, but why should its possibility limit our future? Social definitions change--in the future, polygamy may be a way of life. You never know what will be out there.
|
|
|
voy416
Captain
Joined: 28 Oct 2001
Posts: 631
Location: Rock Bottom
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:53 pm |
|
All This Stuff about the fighting for the goodness and protecting marriage all I have to say is HA protecting marriage look it all the TV show's and super stars getting marry every 2 days or something
i do not care what people say marriage is between to people who love each other not that Adam and eve stuff jezzz let gay people get marriage this is a new day and age
I think it is just the stupidness of adult's it only them who have a problem wit gay marriage or anything that even comes close to being gay.
People cannot say there kids agree with them because kids as in myself learn for are parents and other adults in our lives
that's all i have to say.........
-------signature-------
To Be Are Not To Be......Is That Really The
Question
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:05 pm |
|
| voy416 wrote: | All This Stuff about the fighting for the goodness and protecting marriage all I have to say is HA protecting marriage look it all the TV show's and super stars getting marry every 2 days or something
i do not care what people say marriage is between to people who love each other not that Adam and eve stuff jezzz let gay people get marriage this is a new day and age
I think it is just the stupidness of adult's it only them who have a problem wit gay marriage or anything that even comes close to being gay.
People cannot say there kids agree with them because kids as in myself learn for are parents and other adults in our lives
that's all i have to say......... |
It's not only adults who have a problem with gay marriage. I'm 14, and I disapprove of it.
And Hitchhiker...what if my chair and I are happy together? Again, you're talking definition. Does is *say* only sentient beings...? I really don't know if it does or not, but eh.
I see gay as (And please, don't jump on me and accuse me. This is an opinion, and I have nothing against gays themselves) a disorder. Not natural. You can argue as you like over that, of course, but there's my reason.
|
|
|
voy416
Captain
Joined: 28 Oct 2001
Posts: 631
Location: Rock Bottom
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:17 pm |
|
# 1 i am only 17 and how can u see being gay a disorder u do not pop a pill and its gone #2 sooo alot of things are not natural like boys having long hair or wearing pink shirts all i say is this is a new day and age when the people who say gay marriage is bad or wrong are going to be long gone and then we the kids have to come to peace wit it.
i know people have opinions but please make them good opinion not stupid stuff like what if u like your chair or something [/b]
-------signature-------
To Be Are Not To Be......Is That Really The
Question
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:21 pm |
|
| voy416 wrote: | # 1 i am only 17 and how can u see being gay a disorder u do not pop a pill and its gone #2 sooo alot of things are not natural like boys having long hair or wearing pink shirts all i say is this is a new day and age when the people who say gay marriage is bad or wrong are going to be long gone and then we the kids have to come to peace wit it.
i know people have opinions but please make them good opinion not stupid stuff like what if u like your chair or something [/b] |
I was being sarcastic/ironic, thank you.
I didn't say it involved pills. I mean psychological, i.e. psychological treatment could be warranted. And when I say natural, I mean biologically. There's nothing 'unnatural' about someone growing their hair long. That's like saying girls shouldn't wear jeans. And I don't think that the resistance to gay marriage will go away. I really, really, don't. Go ahead, people can be gay. But I don't see it as being grounds for marriage.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:28 pm |
|
I don't know, I really am having a problem deciding on the issue of gay marriage. I could flip-flop back and forth on this forever. I was thinking I would be ok with state-sponsored gay marriage, but then again, how can I advocate something that I find morally wrong? Then again, as long as it is not in any way destructive, how could I tell people that they can't get married just because I find it morally wrong. I just don't knoooooow. 
(My 2500th post btw  )
|
|
|
voy416
Captain
Joined: 28 Oct 2001
Posts: 631
Location: Rock Bottom
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:32 pm |
|
gay people want to get marryed because they want the same rights as everyone else like if someone die's in a marriage it is all takin care of like if they had kids and the house they live in that kind da stuff and because they love each other huh what so wrong about that.
and for that psychological treatment that is just someone trying to change other people's minds because they think it is not good for some one to like the same sex so they want to change it. and yes i think gay marriage will go away some day. it will take a long time but hey the world will change
-------signature-------
To Be Are Not To Be......Is That Really The
Question
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:37 pm |
|
| voy416 wrote: | gay people want to get marryed because they want the same rights as everyone else like if someone die's in a marriage it is all takin care of like if they had kids and the house they live in that kind da stuff and because they love each other huh what so wrong about that.
and for that psychological treatment that is just someone trying to change other people's minds because they think it is not good for some one to like the same sex so they want to change it. and yes i think gay marriage will go away some day. it will take a long time but hey the world will change |
I think there should be a provision for letting them see the sick. And they should be given certain rights. But I wouldn't call it marriage. I was good friends with a gay couple. (...a triad...but let's not go there...) I agree on certain rights, yes.
As for the psychological aspect, I won't fight you there, unless you want to take it to PM's. My views might offend if I'm not careful. I don't want to do that. I leave now. Thanks for the input, do continue.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:47 pm |
|
But your chair won't get sick. There is literally no gain to marrying a chair. If you love it so much, you already own it . . . you can go ahead and call yourself husband and wife, however, I doubt a chair would be able to procreate with humans
Homosexuality has been around as long as sexuality has been around. Permissibility moves in cycles, as shown by history. There are periods where sexuality is discussed openly, and there were more conservative times, such as the Victorian era, where sexuality was dismissed because it was considered 'improper' to talk about. I think that the issue of gay marriage will also move in cycles--there will be large amounts of support, then large of amounts of distaste as the human focus with sexuality wanes to the minimum.
However, the period of sexual permissibility has increased a lot due to the advent of the Internet and global telecommunications, sexuality literally permeates our entertainment industry. So while it is possible, and probable, that a Victorian-like period of sexual repression may return, I doubt that it will return within our lifetime.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:03 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | No, you can't marry your chair. I'm pretty sure that the definition of marriage will stop at "sentient beings". Unless you can prove that your chair is sentient, you're limited to humans, aliens, dolphins, and hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings that are disguised as white mice.
So why should it stop? I'm not advocating polygamy, but why should its possibility limit our future? Social definitions change--in the future, polygamy may be a way of life. You never know what will be out there. |
If you advocate Gay marriage, you should advocate polygamy, etc.
| Exalya wrote: | | voy416 wrote: | All This Stuff about the fighting for the goodness and protecting marriage all I have to say is HA protecting marriage look it all the TV show's and super stars getting marry every 2 days or something
i do not care what people say marriage is between to people who love each other not that Adam and eve stuff jezzz let gay people get marriage this is a new day and age
I think it is just the stupidness of adult's it only them who have a problem wit gay marriage or anything that even comes close to being gay.
People cannot say there kids agree with them because kids as in myself learn for are parents and other adults in our lives
that's all i have to say......... |
It's not only adults who have a problem with gay marriage. I'm 14, and I disapprove of it.
And Hitchhiker...what if my chair and I are happy together? Again, you're talking definition. Does is *say* only sentient beings...? I really don't know if it does or not, but eh.
I see gay as (And please, don't jump on me and accuse me. This is an opinion, and I have nothing against gays themselves) a disorder. Not natural. You can argue as you like over that, of course, but there's my reason. |
EXACTLY. Students at my school don't approve of gay marriage either--at all. Most don't. And yes, lol, yes! Funny comparisan, but serious.
And I agree with the last statement.
| Exalya wrote: | | voy416 wrote: | # 1 i am only 17 and how can u see being gay a disorder u do not pop a pill and its gone #2 sooo alot of things are not natural like boys having long hair or wearing pink shirts all i say is this is a new day and age when the people who say gay marriage is bad or wrong are going to be long gone and then we the kids have to come to peace wit it.
i know people have opinions but please make them good opinion not stupid stuff like what if u like your chair or something [/b] |
I was being sarcastic/ironic, thank you.
I didn't say it involved pills. I mean psychological, i.e. psychological treatment could be warranted. And when I say natural, I mean biologically. There's nothing 'unnatural' about someone growing their hair long. That's like saying girls shouldn't wear jeans. And I don't think that the resistance to gay marriage will go away. I really, really, don't. Go ahead, people can be gay. But I don't see it as being grounds for marriage. |
Agreed, those are some good points.
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | I don't know, I really am having a problem deciding on the issue of gay marriage. I could flip-flop back and forth on this forever. I was thinking I would be ok with state-sponsored gay marriage, but then again, how can I advocate something that I find morally wrong? Then again, as long as it is not in any way destructive, how could I tell people that they can't get married just because I find it morally wrong. I just don't knoooooow.
(My 2500th post btw ) |
I've been here less than that, and I've posted amost 100 mor than you!
| Exalya wrote: | | voy416 wrote: | gay people want to get marryed because they want the same rights as everyone else like if someone die's in a marriage it is all takin care of like if they had kids and the house they live in that kind da stuff and because they love each other huh what so wrong about that.
and for that psychological treatment that is just someone trying to change other people's minds because they think it is not good for some one to like the same sex so they want to change it. and yes i think gay marriage will go away some day. it will take a long time but hey the world will change |
I think there should be a provision for letting them see the sick. And they should be given certain rights. But I wouldn't call it marriage. I was good friends with a gay couple. (...a triad...but let's not go there...) I agree on certain rights, yes.
As for the psychological aspect, I won't fight you there, unless you want to take it to PM's. My views might offend if I'm not careful. I don't want to do that. I leave now. Thanks for the input, do continue. |
Agreed, true, although on religious grounds--and I do NOT like to debate this--I don't even support Civil Unions, but let's not go there.
As for you, Voy, the pshycological arguement is reasonable, and it would DRAMITICALLY change everything if gays could marry.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
