Kansas bans gay marriages
 

I am appalled. This country is really moving away from what it was meant to be at an alarming rate. This is simply intolerable. So what if gays are different than us? They are still people, citizens of the US, and should have the same rights and freedoms as any other citizen. What the hell are people thinking? Thats like punishing people for getting the cold, or for being born with defects etc. I honestly cant believe people would be so hypocrytical, americans brag of the freedoms the enjoy, immigrants come to America in search of a better life, and yet this is what we do? Things like this piss me off so much mad:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... riage_vote

Why do a man and woman get married? To have and raise children. They get married so thier children can benifit from the union. It also helps to keep the number of street children down. Just as soon as you can show me a couple of gays that can have thier own children (and I'm not talking about using a surregate for any part of the reproduction process) then I might change my mind. Does this make me a homophobe? I don't think so. I could care less if you find some guys hairy ass attractive. You and your bud can go (Edit not in this post please) all you want. Go march in a gay pride parade, I won't even bother to watch. We still have laws that say you can't marry your dog or a goat. Or your sister. And we're a better place for those laws.

The way I see it, this is just as it should be.

I do not think a persons sexual preference/skin color/gender/relegion/ect. should have any bearing on FEDERAL law-making, or constitution adjustment.
I don't think the President, nor Congress should be able to pass laws that effects our entire culture in this sence. Federal Law should be reserved for very serious crime and act as a guidline for state and local law.

If I were the president, this is how I would have it. Leave each state of the union to decide for themselves, what is best for thier own people. I just don't think that a universal law would work in circumstances like:

Gay Union . Stem Cell Research . Biblical reference in public places . Abortion . Ect...

Our Democracy is just not very good at handling cultural & social evolution. Majority wins just is not a very good way to handle complex social morality disagreements. By keeping things on a smaller scale, based directly on local culture I think you will develope a better set of standards and rules based on what the people of a given area want.

This works in a multitude of different circumstances in our country today, things like driving laws & ages, social aid, building & worker requirements laws, ect. And I see no reason why we should be so two-sided as to have to choose one way or the other. We are far too complex a people for a totalitarian government.

It's also not like this ban on gay marriage was just enacted. Gays have never been able to be married in this state, or any other, as far as I know.

the gays started this whole thing off wrong. They should have never used the word marriage, they should have said union. The benifit gays can get by being in a union is that if one is ill the other can make choices for them. If they own property upon ones death the other can get the property without lenthly legal battles and lastly insurance. If they are married they cna get health insurance from thier spouse.
I dont care if you are gay or straight, its your choice just stay in your own lane! I would vote for gay unions and the gay groups should word it that way and they might have had more success.
Live and let live, judge not.................

not sure if u are directing this at me or in general. If this is aimed at me, then, being in support of basic human rights doesnt make me gay. oOo:

Also, I define marriage as a union between two people who want to be together. It doesnt matter who those people are. If both want to be married, then they should have that right. And states should not be allowed to limit somebodys rights. Federal government should make sure of that.

Well...conservatives and christians loved the way the world used to be....when all it was was wars, slavery, and poverty...where their was either rich or poor.

I find it hard to comprehend as well Trunks. Most European Countries and Canada are moving toward legalizing gay marriage, while it seems the US is dead set against it. Not only the government, but the people as well since I believe all the initial referendums to legalize gay marriage were turned down during the November election.

I suppose you could equate this to religion seemingly becoming more popular in the US, while religion is being rooted out in other countries. Or perhaps its traditionalist values. I'm not sure really, but there must be some difference between other western counties and the US. Anyone care to educate me on this?

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":0e49c]the gays started this whole thing off wrong. They should have never used the word marriage, they should have said union. The benifit gays can get by being in a union is that if one is ill the other can make choices for them. If they own property upon ones death the other can get the property without lenthly legal battles and lastly insurance. If they are married they cna get health insurance from thier spouse.
I dont care if you are gay or straight, its your choice just stay in your own lane! I would vote for gay unions and the gay groups should word it that way and they might have had more success.
Live and let live, judge not.................[/quote:0e49c]I agree totally with this statement. I also agree with Johnj that I'm not a homophobe just because I don't support gay marriages.

I'm really getting sick of people (especially teens that grow up watching TRL and MTV 24/7) trying to be all "I support gays! Yey! I am progressing the human race! Yey! I'm a humanist! yey!"

I have NO problem with gay people. Well, that is not the case totally. I don't have any problems with gays that act normally. I'm sure alot of those "hidden gays" (the ones that act completely normal and you would think are straight) are pissed off at the fruity gay guys for ruining their reputation. The fruit pisses me off so much. I couldn't care any less if they want to make out with a man. Sure let them do it, but you don't have to be flaming about everything. This can be compared to the straight guys as well. The straight guys that try to act tough and macho for the ladies. I hate those "overly macho" guys. That's on the opposite side of things, but it is almost comparable.



EDIT: Woops, got part of my history outline in here eek: and added a sentence

Bingo. I found it.

Is it fair to say that the majority don't really have a problem with gay people being with each other, however they do feel that it is somehow wrong or abnormal to be gay, or its ok to be gay, but wrong to act gay?

How can we be so sure that being straight is the right way, and being gay is the wrong way? Yes, you can talk about pro creation and the like, and how if everyone was gay, we'd all die off and that’s why it isn't normal, but I don't believe that makes it not normal.

Some birds prefer other male birds as mates. There are many gay animals. Some humans prefer other males as mates. There are many gay humans. Is it abnormal?

I think if we all could accept gay people as being just as normal as straight people, then there wouldn't even be an argument about it.

i thought all of those points that you made were already known/out there. I don't know if you're saying anything that is brilliant (i'm not down playing your post. I'm just saying i've definately heard that a few hundred times)

OK, well, I guess it was a mini revelation for me.

So is it fair to say gays aren't accepted as being normal?

"If your gay, thats ok, but you should be straight" type of thing?

Dave, my comments were general in nature and not directed at you.
The word marriage (in whatever language) means a union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of propagation of the species. I'm sorry but two guys (or girls) who live together for companionship and financial security do not fit that definition. So that type of relationship needs to be described with a different word.
It is the states duty to limit the rights of its citizens. Otherwise anarchy rules dude.
The federal government is supposed to provide for national defense, regulate matters of commerce between the states, or if a state were to pass a law opposed to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Other than that they are supposed to keep their noses out of the states business.
Pyro annoy:
I'm pretty sure that Americas moral values swing on a pendulum, like our politics. I'm amazed we are so far to the left morally, and to the right politically.

those were my personal thoughts. That shouldn't being considered when drafting a law or a bill to ban/support gay marriages. Like Johnj said, gays don't fit the description that is within a marriage. Let them have a union. I would guess probably around 80% of Americans wouldn't mind giving them civil unions. But when you start to mess with a Sacrament of religion, it kinda gets a little funky in the eyes of the American populace.

I can understand that persons of faith may have a hard time with it.


On a related note:
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... v=3YeXYKlG

i think states should have more say in what the feel is acceptable in their borders. gay marriages however, are a civil rights issue and therefore i feel that it is necessary that a federal mandate should be enforced. if segregation would have been left to the states to decide, what would the country be like today? what if states would only enforce civil rights they felt were more atuned to what they consider 'normal.'

as for what marriage is, its up to the individual. there is no defenition of marriage. you dont need to be married in order to have kids, so i dont see how you can say that marriage is for people who want to have kids and start a family.

Colemon, stackum,johnj, you are homophobes.

[quote="Short Hand":66285]Colemon, stackum,johnj, you are homophobes.[/quote:66285]gg name calling sleeping: If you have something intelligent, say it. Otherwise, please do not respond.

homophobe.

gimmie a break guys. short, quit with the name calling man.

Rising Trade Deficits
NAFTA
CAFTA
A S. American Labor review done, that the Senate wants sugar coated.
Rising decent against the US on an interntial level.
Destruction of the Middle Class.
Out-Sourcing
Coprotate Dominance in politcs.
The enviroment.
Unitng the human race under one banner.
Our soldiers and how they are treated.
Fighting epidemics on a world level. (EX: AIDs in Africa)
Modernizing
Droping oil, and using cleaner, and better alternatives.
Illegal Imagration

Etc...the list continues.



But no Gay Marriage, and the Pope are FAR more important.

wallbash:

The human race is doomed.

Sorry Short I have lived with another man, we were roomies, Hell I've lived with women that were roomies. I've been married and shacked-up. Now explain to me about relationships.

So john, you're saying that my coworker and her husband, who are married but have no plans of having children, aren't actually married?

They are married, and have no plans of having children. Ahhhhh right. Which one are you talking to?

ninty9, you have hit on what is leading to the religious backlash in this country. The pendulum has been swinging towards the attitude that we have freedom of speech as long as you don't talk about God, or that the founding fathers really meant that we should have freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. The silent majority has finally stood up and taken a stand. This will swing the pendulum back...until they get complacent again (which they will) and the pendulum will swing again.

As for homosexuality. I don't believe it is "normal". (assuming what is normal will always be in the majority) If homosexuality was the norm we would have trouble fighting off extinction. That doesn't mean that gays should be persecuted. (sp?)

It's probably only a matter of semantics but I think "marriage" as a term and an institution should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman. I agree with Stackem that some type of Civil Union could be established to help protect gay partners from loss of property in the event one of them dies. (for example)

I've talked to them both. You're saying that the only reason anyone gets married is to have children?

what does religion have anything to do with marriage?

it's one of the 7 sacraments.

double post wallbash:

Sure back in the 1950's, today marriage only means benifits from the government and your place of employment.
(and what if a couple couldnt have childern?, there not allowed to have a marriage because of it?

No I said marriage is and has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. Only your co-worker and the co-workers spouse know why they got married, but I bet it ends up with a baby in somebody's arms, as long as one is a male and the other female.

I also didn't say two people who don't currently plan to have children can't or shouldn't get married.

Marriage is an ancient concept. One could say the idea is as old as religion. There is no set people, religion, or place that came up with the idea, it roots go from ancient Asia, to Native Americans and Ancient Egyptians/Romans.

It is a Cultural establishment, and every culture in the world...past and present views the tradition in a different way. Our culture says it is a religious ceremony of union legal to government and legal to god.

So, many Americans believe that to violate the tradition of Marriage is to violate the laws of god. This of course is not the case in some other cultures.

[quote="Short Hand":56df9]Colemon, stackum,johnj, you are homophobes.[/quote:56df9]


hey ShitHand, I am as far from a homophobe as one can get. I dont care if you are gay just stay in your own lane (which means dont hit on me) I think gays should have rights, they should not be demonized. I know why you post crap like this, you try to get a rise out of the people you bash. I hate to resort to your level but you are an ass

There is a difference between tolerating gays, and accepting them. You gotta learn the 2nd one. Accepting gay marriage is a part of that. (A Crucial part at that).

I just don't understand why people get so fucking defensive about a word...definitions of words can change over time...why should marriage be any different.

Union beitween one human being and another human being.....and this will make it so gays are talked about less and all your homophobes won't have to deal with all this coverage about it.

This is like saying Blacks should still be slaves because that is the way it was and is supposed to be.

And whos been defining this? The definitions i've heard throughout my life have been that "marriage is a union between two that love each other" (this is from family, school and church). Procreation has never been said until you stated it in that post. Perhaps thats the way its been defined in your particular culture, which would explain the differences in our opinions.

But if thats the case, why should one particular culture's definition be the definition for other cultures?

[quote:d3acc]So, many Americans believe that to violate the tradition of Marriage is to violate the laws of god.[/quote:d3acc] That is the root of the problem. People dont want to stop and think for a second. Let me list off some facts.

1) People arent gay because they want to be sinners, and go to hell, people are gay because they just are, they cant halp it, they are attracted to people of the same sex. Punishing and/or restricting the rights of gays is like restricting our rights/punishing us, for being attracted to women. It is completely absurd.
2) We live in a country where all people are equal and are presented with equal right, therefore since marriage is a right, it cannot be denied to anyone.
3) I am not a religious person, but think about this, for those who are. If god is the wisest, most all knowing being ever, etc etc, y would he send gays to hell? Thats like sending mentally retarded people to hell. Its not their fault that they are gay, they just are.

You have such a myopic view when it comes to religion. God does not say, "OMG You had sex with a man. You are DOOMED to hell FOREVER!". He does have compassion. That is why there is a thing called purgatory and "limbo". Limbo is for the unbaptized children and/or people that don't have access to Christianity. As for purgatory, that's where you wait out time for your sins to be forgiven or until you are sorry for the wrongs you've committed. Hell is a place for sinners that do not wish to accept the laws of God and are never sorry for the wrongs they've committed throughout their mortal life. Then some of you will say, "Who is God to say that being gay is wrong?" Well, when you're waiting to be admitted to heaven, I'll be $10 you'll second guess your sins so you can get into a wonderful place. Don't say I'm an idiot for talking about all of this religion, because that is a big portion of this whole debate.

well, if there was an factual evidence of gods exhistance then maybe my view would be different. On the other hand, again, how can somebody be sorry for acting naturally/on his sexual attractions. As I said before, that would be like making us be sorry for being attracted to women. It doesnt make sense. And one last thing. Even if there is a god, religion, and state should never mix. Ever. It doesnt work out well.

You don't want it to mix eh? Then give them the civil union. Problem solved.