Federal Marriage Amendment

[Nym90]

Opposed.

I do find it interesting, though, that people such as Brambila are willing to accept civil unions but strongly oppose gay marriage. As I understand it, the two are the exact same thing, from a legal standpoint (correct me if I'm wrong). So why is everyone so hung up on the words? Does it really make you feel better to be able to say "Well yeah, those two guys are in a committed, loving lifetime relationship, and they have all the legal rights of marriage, but it isn't a marriage, therefore it's ok." As long as gay people can get married, but not call it marriage, that's fine?

That being said, if the anti-gay marriage folks indeed only care about the sanctity of the word "marriage", let them go ahead and keep the word, as long as they are willing to support give de facto marriage in the form of civil unions. Seems kind of silly to me for everyone to get so caught up in the nomenclature.

[Nym90]

Dude, use that dictionary of yours to look up the word "infertile". It's not possible for them to have kids, that's what infertile means. Likewise, people who are paralyzed, or if a woman is post-menopausal, etc.

Here, I'll do it for you, from Dictionary.com.

in·fer·tile    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-fûrtl)
adj.
Not fertile; unproductive or barren.
Biology.
Not capable of initiating, sustaining, or supporting reproduction.
Not fertilized and hence incapable of growing and developing: infertile duck eggs.
Not capable of sustaining crops or vegetation: infertile land.
Unproductive or producing little: a path of research that proved infertile.

And you can talk all you want about the "definition" of marriage, but the legal definition, until the 1960s in some states, barred interracial couples from marrying. Many states into the early 1900's did indeed ban people who were incapable of having children (infertile, paralyzed, post-menopausal women, etc.) from marrying. Mentally retarded people who also often banned from getting married, as well. So since you are not referring to the legal definition of marriage, please tell us which one you are referring to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not. But the intention still remains. It's still POSSIBLE for those two people to have children. It's still following the definition of between a man and woman.  But homosexuals, it's completely out of the question- it's impossible for two people of the same sex to produce one child.

[migrendel]

Marriages and civil unions are unequal. The General Accounting Office lists 1,049 rights that are enjoyed by married couples but not by people sharing property and benefits through a civil union.

[Nym90]

Thanks, I was not aware of that. I would not support civil unions only then, if it doesn't give full marriage rights.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Opposed.

[Gustaf]

I'm opposed. A constitution should not be trifled with for political gain, that's one point. Besides that, I am also opposed on the actual issue. And I feel that if they didn't think it necessary in the homophobic past, why bring it up now.

[angus]

I don't know that it is homophobicity that is the only reason to support it.  I certainly oppose it, and I have attended same-sex union ceremonies, but I don't call myself homophillic.  It's just that I have some gay friends.  There's lots of narrow-mindedness on both sides of this issue.  The best reason to oppose this amendment is the federalist reason.  The best reason to support gay marriage in general is based on equal civil rights, and the best reason to oppose gay marriage in general is based on traditionalism.  This argument need not be homophobes versus homophiles, as many of us are neither.

[Gustaf]

I don't know that it is homophobicity that is the only reason to support it.  I certainly oppose it, and I have attended same-sex union ceremonies, but I don't call myself homophillic.  It's just that I have some gay friends.  There's lots of narrow-mindedness on both sides of this issue.  The best reason to oppose this amendment is the federalist reason.  The best reason to support gay marriage in general is based on equal civil rights, and the best reason to oppose gay marriage in general is based on traditionalism.  This argument need not be homophobes versus homophiles, as many of us are neither.

I don't know whether you're directing your remarks at me or not...I did not mean to imply that division, at any rate. I was merely observing that if in the more narrow-minded, less socially progressive, homophobic past, defence of marriage wasn't thought to be necessary, I don't think it is now.

[PBrunsel]

I support saying marriage is between a man and a woman.

[© tweed]

I support saying marriage is between a man and a woman.

So does david Dreier.  But he has the sense to opposed the FMA.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I support saying marriage is between a man and a woman.

So does david Dreier.  But he has the sense to opposed the FMA.

Dreier is likely a closeted homosexual. I doubt he personally supports that.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Oh give me a break.

[12th Doctor]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.  Civil Unions are a legal thing.  They are an assurance of equal protection under the law.   So therefore, I support national Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh give me a break.

Insiders have speculated that for a long time. The same for Rep. Mark Foley of Florida and Sen. Lindsay Graham.

Personally, I think just looking at Graham should be enough proof, the same way it was no suprise when George Michael came out.

[angus]

freddy mercury  

"She keeps moet et chandon
In her pretty cabinet
’let them eat cake’ she says
Just like marie antoinette
A built-in remedy
For kruschev and kennedy
At anytime an invitation
You can’t decline

Caviar and cigarettes
Well versed in etiquette
Extraordinarily nice

Chorus
She’s a killer queen
Gunpowder, gelatine
Dynamite with a laser beam
Guaranteed to blow your mind
Anytime

Recommended at the price
Insatiable an appetite
Wanna try?

To avoid complications
She never kept the same address
In conversation
She spoke just like a baroness
Met a man from china
Went down to geisha minah
Then again incidentally
If you’re that way inclined

Perfume came naturally from paris
For cars she couldn’t care less
Fastidious and precise

Chorus

Drop of a hat she’s as willing as
Playful as a pussy cat
Then momentarily out of action
Temporarily out of gas
To absolutely drive you wild, wild..
She’s all out to get you

(Chorus)

Recommended at the price
Insatiable an appetite
Wanna try?
You wanna try..."
 
  --Queen, Killer Queen


Well no wonder.  LOL.  Great song, still.

[angus]

reminds me.  we rented "The Guru" last night.  very funny and cheesy if you're into a cross between a spoof of Hindi song-and-dance movies and a love story like Grease.  

Ha!  Man, that sounds gay, I have to admit, looking back over it.  Anyway, the indian guy was so cool, definitely straight, and very funny.  and something of a ladies man, but you wouldn't know it for the first 20 minutes or so because he's so quirky.  he meets a porn actress and they fall in love, sort of.  and his illegal alien friend is also guru ji.

anyway the movie was a very funny East meets West.



any of youze know any Hindi or Urdu and can say whether the goofy illegal alien friend was saying "Okay Guru G." like a homeboy, or "okay guruji" like a native speaker of hindi??

[opebo]

Personally I find the idea of marriage repulsive.  

[angus]

Personally I find the idea of marriage repulsive.  

it's notable that gay marriage is a two-word phrase.  the first time I ever heard it, it was the second word which struck me more askew.  surely it was strange that someone who was 'off the hook' in terms of one's family nagging them to settle down.  why change that?  I thought, "you have it made.  why rock the boat?"  but I guess they want to deal with all the ups and downs too.  at least that's how I see it now that I am engaged to be married to a woman.  Does DOMA affect states' rights to define marriage in a way the federal government finds uncomfortable?  Do the extreme libertarians and state's righters allow for the federal government to define things for them only when the definition is appealing?

[© tweed]

Dreier is likely a closeted homosexual. I doubt he personally supports that.

Is that why he was so supportive of arnold?

[migrendel]

I would ask you, supersoulty to provide reasoning to support your first statement.

[Brambila]

Nym90, that doesn't matter. Their sexual intercourse is still natural. Homosexual intercourse is not. I mean, it's the wrong piping, if you know what I mean. The anus was made for one reason, and the mouth has several reasons besides... that.

[ShapeShifter]

oppose

[opebo]

Nym90, that doesn't matter. Their sexual intercourse is still natural. Homosexual intercourse is not. I mean, it's the wrong piping, if you know what I mean. The anus was made for one reason, and the mouth has several reasons besides... that.

Human ingenuity escapes the bonds of evolution.  Thank goodness.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

So you would also say it is wrong for heterosexuals to have anal or oral sex?

Nym90, that doesn't matter. Their sexual intercourse is still natural. Homosexual intercourse is not. I mean, it's the wrong piping, if you know what I mean. The anus was made for one reason, and the mouth has several reasons besides... that.

[PBrunsel]

I don't want to ban gay marriage with a federal Constitutional amendment. It should be decided with state laws. If a state wants gay marriage let them have it. If they don't want gay marriage then they shouldn't have to have it.