on a completly different topic...

http://www.sfbg.com/38/39/cover_queer_policy.html

pretty good article, if you can ignore the paragraph about bathrooms....

boring and long, couldn't read through the whole thing, besides your bathroom warning didn't really make me want to. Footnotes please?

Pretend, for a moment, that you haven't heard about the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now reconsider it: they're thinking about amending the constitution to prevent certain people from marrying. Never mind that Congress passed a law in 1996 that defines marriage as a male-female institution and allows states to disregard unions formed in other states. Or that the Constitution has always been a document that guarantees rights rather than takes them away. Or that President George W. Bush has so often expressed his dedication to championing liberty and the rights of states. As soon as it looked like some Massachusetts queers might be allowed to marry, he started talking up the amendment. That's how nervous he and his conservative allies are.

Unfortunately, they can do plenty of damage while they're quaking in their reactionary boots. And although Democratic candidate John Kerry is also critical of same-sex marriage, it seems that for most queer activists, another Bush term is the number-one threat these days. "In some ways it feels like there's this enormous potential for progress in social and economic justice – if we could just get out from under the yoke of such a backward president," says Kate Kendall, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Activists fear Bush's antigay rhetoric, but they also fear more of the small, almost incremental policy changes the administration has made – many times without the scrutiny they deserved. Take, for example, the Food and Drug Administration's quiet announcement that after years of consideration, it was urging sperm banks not to let gay men donate, in a supposed effort to control the spread of HIV.



thats about the gist of it.

The decission to try and ban gay marriage is a disgrace. It is exactly the kind of heavy handed government infringement on personal liberties that the Constitution exists to prevent.
The proposed ban is of course unjustifiable and inconsistent with the 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' principles of which Americans are so fond.
Of course, Bush and the other supportive politicians care more for vote pandering than supposedly protecting the sanctity of marriage (whatever that is supposed to be.)
The problem is, this ban is likely to be very popular with millions of Americans who are homophobic and support the notion and do not give a rats ass about civil liberties, so long as their own personal liberties are untouched.

Thats a crock. The logic used to justify gay marriage has no more merrit when its used to justify multiple wives or husbands, or 10 year olds for that matter. If its a question of doing whatever people want then why have marriage at all? Go have a ceremony and party and call it whatever the hell you want.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

It is pretty rediculous. Both for two people of the same sex to marry, and just as rediculous for anybody to become upset over it. It's rare you come across a situation that is so stupid from any angle you look at it, that you don't even want to get involved. I'm against making laws for the express purpose of taking away people's rights, but otherwise I think the whole situation is hopelessly stupid.
Take, for example, the Food and Drug Administration's quiet announcement that after years of consideration, it was urging sperm banks not to let gay men donate, in a supposed effort to control the spread of HIV
You'd think that they'd realize by now that you don't have to be gay to have AIDS. I'd also wonder why it even mattered, since the ammount of gay people donating to sperm banks must be only a very miniscule ammount compared to the number of heterosexual men donating.
I find the whole fear totally irrational. But we have to remember that this last part is from the same people who declared frozen french fries to be a "fresh vegetable." :)

Thats a crock. The logic used to justify gay marriage has no more merrit when its used to justify multiple wives or husbands, or 10 year olds for that matter.

slippery slope argument, and its pretty weak. i do believe the sentiment is still "love between two consenting adults".

also, to addres your second part, its not just a ceremony and a party, it has to do with rights, the rights of a partener in the hospital, or of taxes, or inheritence. not to mention the right to be treated as equally as any other citizen of the US.

and as for multiple wives and husbands...we'll cross that bridge when we get there, but not even the mormons consent to polygamy much any more.

Two dudes marrying each other and having sex together isn't normal, for those of you who didn't notice. Political correctness and gay rights are two ridiculous issues in today's society. Its not gay equal rights, its gay "we can do whatever the hell we want because we are 'minorities' rights", and its quite sickening.

Ah, some much needed comic relief. :)

something funny?:loser:

This is pretty funny!

Two dudes marrying each other and having sex together isn't normal, for those of you who didn't notice. Political correctness and gay rights are two ridiculous issues in today's society. Its not gay equal rights, its gay "we can do whatever the hell we want because we are 'minorities' rights", and its quite sickening.

What you are saying is just as rediculous as saying that two people who love guns shouldn't marry. And that when two people who love guns marry, it just goes to show that they're saying that they can do whatever they want, because they own guns. :rofl: :p

Call it by whatever name you like,a marriage,a civil union whatever,but please,don't impose the same legal obligations of marriage on gay relationships.Apart from anyything else,when it all turns to custard and they get divorced,how are they supposed to decide which one gets to be the ex-wife,and which one has to hand over the alimony?

Mark your calendar!!!! I agree with Taranaki, please pass the cheese.

the good old discussion about gay marriages. Why do they feel the obligation to call it marriage? The term marriage defines the legal union of a MAN and a WOMAN. Now, for gay people to be recognized as a legal couple, why not call it gayriage, or garrage?

Two dudes marrying each other and having sex together isn't normal, for those of you who didn't notice. Political correctness and gay rights are two ridiculous issues in today's society. Its not gay equal rights, its gay "we can do whatever the hell we want because we are 'minorities' rights", and its quite sickening.
It isn't normal for closed minded non homosexuals. What does minorities rights have to do with it?

Call it by whatever name you like,a marriage,a civil union whatever,but please,don't impose the same legal obligations of marriage on gay relationships.Apart from anyything else,when it all turns to custard and they get divorced,how are they supposed to decide which one gets to be the ex-wife,and which one has to hand over the alimony?
The one with the best attorney. Thats who. hahaha
The decission to try and ban gay marriage is a disgrace. It is exactly the kind of heavy handed government infringement on personal liberties that the Constitution exists to prevent.
The proposed ban is of course unjustifiable and inconsistent with the 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' principles of which Americans are so fond.
Of course, ......The problem is, this ban is likely to be very popular with millions of Americans who are homophobic and support the notion and do not give a rats ass about civil liberties, so long as their own personal liberties are untouched.
I agree, Changing the Constitution to ban gay marriage is not only wrong but downright frightening.

On the gay marriage issue, having a brother whos gay, I feel that if they want to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives why not get an official recognition of their union. I personally would not want it to be called marriage for the fact that the statement marriage implies it being sanctioned by the church and I am a firm believer of seperation of church and state. Just call it what it is a Civil Union. Yet still, if they want to be in a loving relationship with their significant other for the rest of their lives they why not. Who are we to stop anyone from loving another human being. I have seen the harassment and the unfair treatment that my brother goes through and I would not want that happen to any person. He has been a victim of a bias crime, ended up in the hospital and the hospital would not allow his significant other to visit him because hes not immediate family. It stuff like that, that others would take for granted is what they are fighting for, nothing more and nothing else.

Why do they call it marriage when a Mexican marries an Ethiopian? Why not call it Ethiriage, or Mexirage? :)

only if it's a gayriage....seriously though, the whole wanting the same rights as a married couple is ridiculous. Let them be recognized as a couple, but the issue we should be discussing is the allowance of adoption

Yes, but adoption and marriage are two different things. I see no problem with letting man and man, and woman and woman wed. The only time rights can be justifiable taken away, is when those rights cancel out the rights of others, people don't have the right to murder, because it takes away somebody's right to be alive.
Nobody is put in danger when two people decide to be "officially" together (even though the whole concept is really pretty stupid) or that they get the same health benefits and all that crap.
As for adoption, it's a very iffy subject. I'm sure that if you originally had a crackwhore mother and an alcoholic father, even a gay couple would seem like a huge improvement. But it goes beyond that, into what pyschological issues one might face being raised by two mothers, or two fathers. I for one don't know what they'd be since I don't know anything about how growing up in such a family would affect children.

i really dont care about gay marriage....it would be the choice of having a kid that disturbs me, but since thats off-topic, I'm gone

Yes, but adoption and marriage are two different things. I see no problem with letting man and man, and woman and woman wed. The only time rights can be justifiable taken away, is when those rights cancel out the rights of others, people don't have the right to murder, because it takes away somebody's right to be alive.
Nobody is put in danger when two people decide to be "officially" together (even though the whole concept is really pretty stupid) or that they get the same health benefits and all that crap.
As for adoption, it's a very iffy subject. I'm sure that if you originally had a crackwhore mother and an alcoholic father, even a gay couple would seem like a huge improvement. But it goes beyond that, into what pyschological issues one might face being raised by two mothers, or two fathers. I for one don't know what they'd be since I don't know anything about how growing up in such a family would affect children.
Any adoptive couple must be screened to week out the criminals, freaks pedophiles and child slavery hobbyists. Realistically, the sexual orientation of an adoptive couple should be pretty far down the list or decision criteria.
However, the government and child welfare agencies have a massive double standard on this issue.
There are millions of kids being brought up by unfit parents who are drug addicts, abusers etc. The state has little interest in taking them ALL away from their abusive birth parents. Should the state be so much more concerned with sexual orientation over parental abuse?
I am sure a qualified gay couple would be just as good as any other. Furthermore, if a lesbian has her own child, that is fine. Why should a lesbian adopting one be any different?
Adoption should be addressed on a case by case basis. A total ban on adoption by same sex couples is not in the best interest of the needy children around the world.

Well as I suggested, being adopted by a gay couple would be potentially better than being raised by abusive parents etc. I wasn't suggesting a "total ban" at all.

first, regardless of if you agree with gay marriage or not, look at what might happen. your government, the one fighting "for freedom" is considering a constitutional admentment that would prevent a certain portion of its population from getting married. how is that freedom.

and marriage isnt specifically the church. please note ship captains and justices of the peace may preform marriage ceremonies that hold the same legal obligations as a priest or minister.

to call it something different would be okay i guess, but its still discrimination and segregation. like the colored and non colored water fountains back in the day. yeah, the blacks got public water fountains, but they were still being segregated.

and as for it being normal, pick...50 years ago, black people eating in the same restruant as white people wasnt normal.

i just find it horrifying that we as country claim to be the most freedom loving country in the world, yet when it comes to something as silly and ridiculous as marriage, we are, as whole, very iffy about extending those rights to people who dont agree with us. its frightening that we are on the threshold of an era where our constituion is going to be used to deny rights, rather than garuntee them