POL A tightrope on gay marriage

[Dornroeschen]

A tightrope on gay marriage
Posted: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:01 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, McCain, Obama

From NBC/NJ’s Matthew E. Berger

Where do the campaigns stand on the California initiative to ban gay marriage? It can be hard to figure out.

The McCain campaign quietly released their support for the initiative -- which declares marriage as a union between a man and a woman -- last Thursday. (McCain voted against the federal constitutional same-sex marriage ban.)

VIDEO: Across California, gay couples rushed to get marriage licenses and exchange vows for the first time, triggering celebrations, protests and a new cottage industry. NBC's Chris Jansing reports.

There was no press release, and the statement appears nowhere on the campaign Web site. Instead, the McCain camp gave a statement to the organization behind the California initiative.

“We sought the endorsement, and they gave it to us,” said Jeff Flint, the campaign manager for the Protect Marriage Initiative. “We asked if we can put it out, and they said, ‘yes.’”

The two-sentence statement reads: “I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.”

The campaign appears to be saying one thing to conservative groups, and another to the mainstream media. When the California Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage in California on May 15, campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds made a similar statement, but didn’t send it to their full press list. It’s not on their Web site, either.

On June 3, when the California initiative qualified for the November ballot, the campaign released a less declarative statement to the national press, in John McCain’s name, in which he said, “I welcome the news that the people of California will have the opportunity to decide on the question of the definition of marriage, rather than having that decision made by judicial fiat as the California Supreme Court asserted in their recent ruling.” It doesn’t say whether he supports it.

Backing the California initiative is a controversial move for McCain. The state’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, opposes the measure, and while a recent Los Angeles Times poll showed 54 percent of registered voters backed the amendment, the paper’s polling director, Susan Pinkus, said ballot measures usually lose support during a campaign and the current numbers “may not bode well for the measure.”

His stated support for the measure helps McCain with social conservatives, who pressed him last week to speak more often on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. But it can hurt his standing with moderates and independent voters.

Obama, who also opposed the federal ban on gay marriage, took a similar tact in the opposite direction of McCain this weekend. The Illinois senator announced through the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club that he opposed the California amendment. In a letter read in San Francisco Sunday, Obama said he he opposes “divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”

“Sen. Obama supports civil unions, and he has consistently opposed federal and state constitutional marriage amendments because as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marrigae into the constitution can allow some states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

He added that Obama has made that case in front of Christian audiences as well as gay rights groups. LaBolt said the campaign has been telling reporters about their opposition to the state initiative since the Supreme Court decision, although it is not on its Web site either.


But Obama told the Human Rights Campaign in a questionnaire earlier this year that he opposed the idea of civil marriage for gay couples, while supporting civil unions that include the same legal rights. He also said he would oppose efforts to block states from voting on this issue.

“However, I do not support gay marriage,” he said in the questionnaire. “Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own.”

The McCain camp has accused of Obama of changing positions on this issue.

“He’s always said he’s opposed to gay marriage and that it should be left up to the states,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said. “I’m not sure how opposing this initiative would be opposing gay marriage. It doesn’t really track.”

Flint said McCain’s endorsement of the California amendment was important because it helps show the initiative is not mean-spirited, which he said can boost support.

McCain’s Web site has three paragraphs on protecting marriage in its “Human Dignity and Life” section of the issues tab. “John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” it reads, adding that the “Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society.”

Patrick Sammon, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group, said he had been talking to campaign officials since Friday to get clarification on their position.

“We obviously disagree with Sen. McCain and will work to convince him this amendment is wrong for California and wrong for America,” Sammon said.

Flint said his campaign has not decided whether to feature McCain’s statement in print or television advertising in California.

“We’ve put it out and we’ve got authorization to use the statement if and when it’s helpful to our campaign,” he said.

NBCNews/National Journal’s Carrie Dann contributed to this report.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/01/1178023.aspx

 

[American Rage]

I see no tight rope, it's simply wrong!


Rage

 

[Technomancer]

They keep wanting to vote on the definition of marriage etc. We know the definition, it comes from maritus, latin for husband. Marriage is getting a husband. Therefore neither heterosexual men nor homosexual women can get married, as neither would be getting a husband.

So, we need to fix all the loopholes where men are allowed to say they are married, or when people say a bachelor is getting married, its wrong.
All those men lying on forms when asked if they are married... something must be done to stop those tryin to change the definition from being given to a husband to something along the lines of "joining in union".

If asking a man if hes bought a woman or had one donated to him, it needs to asked properly, not asked if hes married (been given to a husband).

 

[fruit loop]

Nothing is going to change.

All this does is give gays....THE RIGHT TO MARRY. Gay spouses now have the same civil and legal rights as other spouses. No difference.

Society is not going to come crashing down, and your individual families are no more affected by a gay person's marriage than you are personally by MY marriage.

 

[American Rage]

Nothing is going to change.

All this does is give gays....THE RIGHT TO MARRY. Gay spouses now have the same civil and legal rights as other spouses. No difference.

Society is not going to come crashing down, and your individual families are no more affected by a gay person's marriage than you are personally by MY marriage.

WRONG! It sends a moral message to every kid that it's okay and acceptable to be gay. When the truth is that homos have a long and sorted history that is being covered up. As someone who has worked with "gay" child molesters, I will be the first to tell you how screwed up most of these people are. To them, sex is sex.


Rage

 

[fruit loop]

Most child molesters are heterosexual.

Some gay people molest children. Some straight people molest children. Sexuality does not determine criminal behavior.

If my kid came to me and said he was gay, I certainly hope that our other friends would accept him and love him for who is, as I would. And as God does.

 

[American Rage]

Most child molesters are heterosexual.

Some gay people molest children. Some straight people molest children. Sexuality does not determine criminal behavior.

If my kid came to me and said he was gay, I certainly hope that our other friends would accept him and love him for who is, as I would. And as God does.

You're right, most child molesters are hetros. But most hetro child molesters attack one maybe two children. Meanwhile, the homo child molesters usually attacks dozens and sometimes even hundreds before being caught.

Yeah, I'm sure God loved Ted Bundy too. If Ted can't help that God made him a serial killer, should we accept that too?


Rage

 

[Harbinger]

A tightrope on gay marriage
Posted: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:01 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, McCain, Obama


The McCain campaign quietly released their support for the initiative -- which declares marriage as a union between a man and a woman -- last Thursday. (McCain voted against the federal constitutional same-sex marriage ban.)




On June 3, when the California initiative qualified for the November ballot, the campaign released a less declarative statement to the national press, in John McCain’s name, in which he said, “I welcome the news that the people of California will have the opportunity to decide on the question of the definition of marriage, rather than having that decision made by judicial fiat as the California Supreme Court asserted in their recent ruling.” It doesn’t say whether he supports it.


I thought the Bible gave a definitive definition! Oh yeah! This is no longer a Bible believing country...never mind!



Obama, who also opposed the federal ban on gay marriage, took a similar tact in the opposite direction of McCain this weekend. The Illinois senator announced through the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club that he opposed the California amendment. In a letter read in San Francisco Sunday, Obama said he he opposes “divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”

“Sen. Obama supports civil unions, and he has consistently opposed federal and state constitutional marriage amendments because as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marrigae into the constitution can allow some states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

He added that Obama has made that case in front of Christian audiences as well as gay rights groups. LaBolt said the campaign has been telling reporters about their opposition to the state initiative since the Supreme Court decision, although it is not on its Web site either.


But Obama told the Human Rights Campaign in a questionnaire earlier this year that he opposed the idea of civil marriage for gay couples, while supporting civil unions that include the same legal rights. He also said he would oppose efforts to block states from voting on this issue.

“However, I do not support gay marriage,” he said in the questionnaire. “Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own.”



Ah! I see the trick! For Christians he supports "marriages"....and for gays....he'll call it uh...."civil union" and support that! But he doesn't support "gay marriages" because marriages are about 1 women and 1 man. So that way he won't be going against the Bible....right! Sure! NO trick up his sleeves!







http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/01/1178023.aspx

 

[fruit loop]

Marriage is both a civil institution (a legal contract) and a sacramental institution, depending upon one's belief system.

Anyone who wants to should be able to get married provided they are of legal age and mentally competent to consent.

AmericanRage, that's absolute bullshit. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a propensity for criminal behavior.

Ted Bundy was a heterosexual, by the way, and that had nothing to do with making him a serial killer.

All homosexuals are not child molesters. All heterosexuals are not serial killers.

 

[American Rage]

Marriage is both a civil institution (a legal contract) and a sacramental institution, depending upon one's belief system.

1. Anyone who wants to should be able to get married provided they are of legal age and mentally competent to consent.

2. AmericanRage, that's absolute bullshit. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a propensity for criminal behavior.

3. Ted Bundy was a heterosexual, by the way, and that had nothing to do with making him a serial killer.

4. All homosexuals are not child molesters. All heterosexuals are not serial killers.

1. That's your opinion. Not mine. Should we be allowed to marry animals too?

2. You missed the point. See number 4.

3. Again, you missed the point. I was merely turning the "I'm born this way argument" around to show how ludicrous it is.

4. I never said either of the above. Simply pointed out that gay child molesters molest in much larger numbers than hetero child molesters. But then again, gays have many more sex partners, on average, than heteros do.

Rage

 

[fruit loop]

1. Absurd comparison. For one thing, an animal cannot consent and is not competent to enter a legal contract.

2. False. The majority of child molesters are heterosexuals, and are almost always known to the child. Usually it's a relative. If what you claim is true then fathers wouldn't molest their daughters.

3. Nobody chooses a lifestyle that earns them hatred and abuse - and maybe even murder.

4. See #2.

 

[American Rage]

1. Absurd comparison. For one thing, an animal cannot consent and is not competent to enter a legal contract.

2. False. The majority of child molesters are heterosexuals, and are almost always known to the child. Usually it's a relative. If what you claim is true then fathers wouldn't molest their daughters.

3. Nobody chooses a lifestyle that earns them hatred and abuse - and maybe even murder.

4. See #2.

1. Well, I'd agree with that. But there those that push sex with animals. Can marriage be far behind?

2. Your English comprehension skills are clearly pathetic, as I never made that claim. In fact, I agreed with you concerning this statement above. What I pointed out was the number of children molested by the individual molester was much higher for gay molesters than for hetero molesters. I suggest you reread what I wrote and do a little research.

3. Ted Bundy clearly did. Unless of course he was born that way. In which case, you and I have no reason passing laws condemning his activities, according to the gay rights people.

4. I did. I suggest you do the same.

Rage

 

[Harbinger]

Marriage is both a civil institution (a legal contract) and a sacramental institution, depending upon one's belief system.

Wrong! A marriage is between one man and one woman.....a civil union doesn't depend up on gender!

Anyone who wants to should be able to get married provided they are of legal age and mentally competent to consent.

Wrong again! No! Any heterosexual can get married.....gays must have a civil union.."Webster's New College Dictionary" states: Marriage: 1. . the state of being married. 2. the mutual relation of husband and wife: wedlock. 3. the institution whereby men and women are joined in special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. Civil: 1. A. of or relating to citizens. b. of or relating to the state or its citizenry. 2. A civilized. b. adequate in courtesy and politeness; mannerly. 3. of relating to , or based upon civil law B. relating to private rigts and to remediesw sought by action or suit distinct from crimminal proceedings c. established for use in ordinary affairs. 5. of relating to or involving the general public , their activities , needs or ways or civic affairs as distinguished from special (as military or religious affairs). Union: 1. act of or instance of uniting or joining two or more things into one: sexual inter course 3 a. the growing together of severed parts. b. a unified condition: combination, junction. 4. something that is made one: something formed by a combining or coalition of parts or members; as a: a confederation of independent individuals (as a nation or persons)for some common purpose..etc, etc, etc. Basically in nut shell ....one is joined by God for the purpose of family and relational ties...one is joined by Government that doesn't necessarily involve relational ties or dependency! Big difference between getting married and having a civil union!

According to both the Bible and Webster's dictionary a gay cannot be married...they can however have a civil union...try again!

AmericanRage, that's absolute bullshit. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a propensity for criminal behavior.

Ted Bundy was a heterosexual, by the way, and that had nothing to do with making him a serial killer.

All homosexuals are not child molesters. All heterosexuals are not serial killers.

As for gays being child molesters more so than heterosexuals..I haven't a clue cuz I don't work in the field...I will take American Rage at his/her word cuz ....the info is not pertinent to me at this time!

 

[American Rage]

Here's more info, to dispel a few myths founded on propaganda.

Homos make up 10 % of the population of the US, ummm, errr, at least they did until it was learned that they only made of 3% of the population in the rest of the world. Suddenly, the homos began to backtrack on their claims.

Gays have different brain patterns, particularly in the hypothalamus. Well, until it was learned that the differences were caused by AIDS, and occurred in both gay and straight victims of the disease. More backtracking by the homos.

Gays are born b/c it's due to genetics. Well, until it was pointed out that Australians had the highest gay male population in the world. But curiously, the female population of Australia did not have the same percentage of female gays as male gays. If they all come from the same gene pool, wouldn't female gays equal male gays? Apparently in gay world the laws of mathematics and probability are suspended.

Gays just want to be left alone. BS! Gays wish to recruit and indoctrinate. If fact, gays have been known to rape heteros for the thrill of it. Happened in my town a few weeks ago.

Also, it should be pointed out that when gays murder, their victims often resemble the victims of psychopaths. Could it be b/c homosexuality is a mental disorder as originally claimed? Note: Gays have, at one time or another, been forced to address this issue. They claimed that it was due to their anger at being rejected by society. This argument might make sense if they were killing heteros, but in reality it's other gays, usually lovers, that they stab 40, 50, 100 times, or shoot 6 times, reload, shoot another 6 times, and then bash the victims brains out until the guns grips began to break off in the perp's own hand.

Most gay men that I've personally met, eventually told me that they were molested by gay men while they were children. As one stated to me, Rage: "I learned to like it a lot!," said with a huge smile.

Most gay women that I've personally met, eventually told me that they were molested by straight men while they were children. They learned to HATE MEN due to the abuse, and turned to other women, often with similiar experiences, for comfort.

I will never agree with the gay agenda and will fight it to the day I take my last dying breath.


Rage

 

[kozanne]

Homosexual marriage is a dead horse, as well as a dead end [!] for more than one reason. Look, you can fight it at the ballot box, all that stuff, but the fact of the matter is that it is here to stay and will not disappear off the horizon anytime soon. It's time for 'the rest of us' to decide how we are going to live our lives in the face of this carved in stone fact.

The questions in front of 'the rest of us' now are things like, are we willing to sacrifice our jobs, our businesses, our ministries, our churches for what we believe?

1. If you are a minister, will you marry homosexuals or risk losing your church's 501(c)3 status?

2. If you are a preacher, will you keep silent in your church about homosexuality or will you tell people what God's Word says about it and risk trial or imprisonment?

3. If you are working for a government agency at any level, are you willing to sacrifice your job if you are forced to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals?

4. If you own an apartment building, will you rent to a homosexual couple or risk a discrimination lawsuit?

5. If you own a wedding photography business, will you consent to photographing homosexual unions or risk a lawsuit? Do you have $6,000 handy? That's how much it cost that photographer in New Mexico.

6. If you are a parent of school age children, will you allow them to be subjected to pro-homosexual teaching [ie the teaching of two moms/dads, sex education, etc.] in the classroom? Will you take them out of the school system and homeschool them, which means you might have to quit your day job to do it?

Those of us who truly believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God are facing some big decisions. And those who rant and rave about our fundamentalist alarmism [probably one of the kinder things I've seen said] are spitting into the wind. It's over. Let those who support this reap what they sow. "The rest of us" need to TCB.

 

[Harbinger]

Here's more info, to dispel a few myths founded on propaganda.

Homos make up 10 % of the population of the US, ummm, errr, at least they did until it was learned that they only made of 3% of the population in the rest of the world. Suddenly, the homos began to backtrack on their claims.

Gays have different brain patterns, particularly in the hypothalamus. Well, until it was learned that the differences were caused by AIDS, and occurred in both gay and straight victims of the disease. More backtracking by the homos.

Gays are born b/c it's due to genetics. Well, until it was pointed out that Australians had the highest gay male population in the world. But curiously, the female population of Australia did not have the same percentage of female gays as male gays. If they all come from the same gene pool, wouldn't female gays equal male gays? Apparently in gay world the laws of mathematics and probability are suspended.

Gays just want to be left alone. BS! Gays wish to recruit and indoctrinate. If fact, gays have been known to rape heteros for the thrill of it. Happened in my town a few weeks ago.

Also, it should be pointed out that when gays murder, their victims often resemble the victims of psychopaths. Could it be b/c homosexuality is a mental disorder as originally claimed? Note: Gays have, at one time or another, been forced to address this issue. They claimed that it was due to their anger at being rejected by society. This argument might make sense if they were killing heteros, but in reality it's other gays, usually lovers, that they stab 40, 50, 100 times, or shoot 6 times, reload, shoot another 6 times, and then bash the victims brains out until the guns grips began to break off in the perp's own hand.

Most gay men that I've personally met, eventually told me that they were molested by gay men while they were children. As one stated to me, Rage: "I learned to like it a lot!," said with a huge smile.

Most gay women that I've personally met, eventually told me that they were molested by straight men while they were children. They learned to HATE MEN due to the abuse, and turned to other women, often with similiar experiences, for comfort.

I will never agree with the gay agenda and will fight it to the day I take my last dying breath.


Rage

AmericanRage ...that's funny that you should mentioned that....all the lesbians that I knew back in college...said the same thing....usually they were raped by family members...some one they really trusted and because of that they simply didn't trust men! But I didn't ask the ones that were interested in their pets....I decided that the answer would probably involve visual info that I didn't care to have....oh well!

 

[Melodi]

There is a very easy solution to all this, and several first world countries have used it. That choice is to have a civil contract for ANY COUPLE gay/streight or in-between who want the LEGAL CONTRACT RIGHTS, now called "marriage." The state gets out of the loaded "marriage" word altogether. Churches, temples, mosques, groves, etc., are now free to preform (or not perform) and type of marriage that they wish.

That's because marriage then goes back to what it was for the first 1,000 years of the Christian church (look it up) and for most of Western history: a contract between two people and/or their families.

In most times and places (including the Christian world) the State (most often King's) law would be the legal basis of marriage. The church would then bless or consecrate the contract. That's why until about 1200 A.D., almost all church "weddings" were outside the church on the front steps because it wasn't really the church's place to do the marriage. Now the church did have the right to decide under church law who could and could not be married (and be recognized by the church) but the marriage itself was a LEGAL CONTRACT. And just like LEGAL CONTRACTS today it gave certain rights and recognizes certain responsibilities to those included in the contract.

The one change the Christian church was able to make over time, was to require the consent of the bride, which under Roman law was not always considered important. But over all, they left the details to whatever government was in power, and just made rulings on who (as a Christian) a believer could or could not choose as a marriage partner (due to kinship or other ties).

So, if the State (s) simply change the law to reflect a Civil Contract between any two adults (or multiple adults doesn't matter to me, but lets stick with two for now) as what the STATE provides. You take away the land mind of the word "marriage." Now, now one's belief system is upturned if Bob and George want to have the same CIVIL CONTRACT rights as Bob and Susan. If Claire and Jane want such a Civil Contract, they go to the court house and sign the paperwork. So do Bob and Susan, so do George and other Bob.

But NO ONE has to MARRY any of them, if they don't want to. No Preacher has to worry about loosing his tax deferment because he doesn't have to marry anyone that his church feels is not suitable. Be that because they are gay, divorced or wear too much of the color green; it is a religious decision, not a legal one. No one has to recognize any contract as a marriage that they don't want to, and the people in the contract are free to refer to themselves as married as they choose.

How this harms anyone I have no idea. And I will point out that several European and South American countries have used a system like this since the mid-19th century. In those countries, couples for over a hundred years have gone to the court house in the morning (or the afternoon before) and then had a huge church wedding the next day. The Catholic church has never had a problem with this, nor any other group I know of. It also made it easier for some countries to include Civil Contracts for same sex couples because everyone was very clear on the difference between a legal wedding and a religious one.

Most of these countries do call their contracts Marriage, a few dropped the term for same-sex unions, but in the US the best thing might just be to drop the marriage word altogether.

The ancient Christian Church was just fine for more than a 1,000 years allowing Federal States to dictate civil marriage laws, while at the same time adding bits for their own believers to follow if they wanted a church blessing/wedding.

I really, really don't understand what the entire fuss is about or why so many people want to deny two adults a civil contract that allows them to share their debts, visit each other when ill, be next of kin and provides inheritance rights. No one is telling anyone they have to form such a contract with a member of the same sex, most people probably wouldn't want to. But for people that do, the law should be fair.

Either that or there should be NO LEGAL CONTRACTS at all, just let everyone be treated as an individual person no matter who or whom they live with. No tax breaks, no next of kin unless you sign a paper, children are linked to biological parents unless deemed unfit by a court etc. I'm not sure I'd want to go there, but that's really the other alternative that I can see for the CIVIL law to be fair. Now for folks who don't believe in a separation of Church and State, that's a different problem. Personally, I prefer total freedom of religion for individuals but to keep it out of the civil courts as much as possible, the more so when it comes to questions like "who is, and who is not a family member."

 

[Dennis Olson]

Treating ANY CLASS of Americans differently under the law is blatantly unconstitutional.

Period.

 

[kozanne]

But NO ONE has to MARRY any of them, if they don't want to. No Preacher has to worry about loosing his tax deferment because he doesn't have to marry anyone that his church feels is not suitable. Be that because they are gay, divorced or wear too much of the color green; it is a religious decision, not a legal one. No one has to recognize any contract as a marriage that they don't want to, and the people in the contract are free to refer to themselves as married as they choose.

How will this prevent someone from suing a church or business or individual for discrimination?

 

[American Rage]

Treating ANY CLASS of Americans differently under the law is blatantly unconstitutional.

Period.

So you agree that serial killers are a protected class?


Rage

 

[Dennis Olson]

Criminals aren't a class of people. They violated the law(s).

 

[American Rage]

Criminals aren't a class of people. They violated the law(s).

There was a time when would could say the same about homosexuals.

Perhaps serial killers need a better PR campaign.


Rage

 

[Dennis Olson]

That was then; this is now. People engaging in LEGAL ACTIVITY cannot be treated differently under the law. No matter how badly we might "want" it to be so, it's still unconstitutional. Just ask any women who were alive before they were "granted the right" to VOTE....

 

[American Rage]

That was then; this is now. People engaging in LEGAL ACTIVITY cannot be treated differently under the law. No matter how badly we might "want" it to be so, it's still unconstitutional. Just ask any women who were alive before they were "granted the right" to VOTE....

But that came from a Constitutional Amendment, not a judicial fiat.


Rage

 

[Dennis Olson]

It had to come that way, because the MEN in the US at the time wouldn't otherwise have "recognized" WOMEN'S GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. Based on what we know to be true TODAY, an Amendment was never necessary if the Constituion had been followed properly.

 

[American Rage]

It had to come that way, because the MEN in the US at the time wouldn't otherwise have "recognized" WOMEN'S GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. Based on what we know to be true TODAY, an Amendment was never necessary if the Constituion had been followed properly.

10,000 years of history would argue that point. Also, I never realized you were such a fan of interpretism.


Rage

 

[MorningSunn]

You're right, most child molesters are hetros. But most hetro child molesters attack one maybe two children. Meanwhile, the homo child molesters usually attacks dozens and sometimes even hundreds before being caught.

Yeah, I'm sure God loved Ted Bundy too. If Ted can't help that God made him a serial killer, should we accept that too?


Rage

Here's more info, to dispel a few myths founded on propaganda.

Homos make up 10 % of the population of the US, ummm, errr, at least they did until it was learned that they only made of 3% of the population in the rest of the world. Suddenly, the homos began to backtrack on their claims.

Gays have different brain patterns, particularly in the hypothalamus. Well, until it was learned that the differences were caused by AIDS, and occurred in both gay and straight victims of the disease. More backtracking by the homos.

Gays are born b/c it's due to genetics. Well, until it was pointed out that Australians had the highest gay male population in the world. But curiously, the female population of Australia did not have the same percentage of female gays as male gays. If they all come from the same gene pool, wouldn't female gays equal male gays? Apparently in gay world the laws of mathematics and probability are suspended.

Gays just want to be left alone. BS! Gays wish to recruit and indoctrinate. If fact, gays have been known to rape heteros for the thrill of it. Happened in my town a few weeks ago.

Also, it should be pointed out that when gays murder, their victims often resemble the victims of psychopaths. Could it be b/c homosexuality is a mental disorder as originally claimed? Note: Gays have, at one time or another, been forced to address this issue. They claimed that it was due to their anger at being rejected by society. This argument might make sense if they were killing heteros, but in reality it's other gays, usually lovers, that they stab 40, 50, 100 times, or shoot 6 times, reload, shoot another 6 times, and then bash the victims brains out until the guns grips began to break off in the perp's own hand.

Most gay men that I've personally met, eventually told me that they were molested by gay men while they were children. As one stated to me, Rage: "I learned to like it a lot!," said with a huge smile.

Most gay women that I've personally met, eventually told me that they were molested by straight men while they were children. They learned to HATE MEN due to the abuse, and turned to other women, often with similiar experiences, for comfort.

I will never agree with the gay agenda and will fight it to the day I take my last dying breath.


Rage

I would like to see the data/links where you get all these "Facts" about the Homosexual Community ... Thank You.

 

[Dennis Olson]

I'm a "fan" of equal treatment for all Americans under the law, who are engaging in lawful activities. If that makes me something "name-able" in your mind, I'll wear whatever name you choose with pride. Because the Constitution, which I support above all else, is the supreme Law of the Land, and it's purpose is to protect Americans from abuses both by government AND other Americans who might not agree with others' activities.

EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. Without it, we're just Iran....

 

[American Rage]

​

I would like to see the data/links where you get all these "Facts" about the Homosexual Community ... Thank You.

25 years of following the debate. Much is tucked into my tiny cranium.

But the gays committing murders very similiar to psychopaths came from a forensics expert long before most knew what forensics were.

Others were well publicized at the time, such as the 10% v. 3% figure.

Others still came from my work with sex offenders, or friendships that I formed with lesbians.

For instance, one lesbian told me she started out liking men. In fact, she'd been married several times to men. But after being terribly abused by many of them, she decided she'd rather be with a woman. The most abusive thing, that she told me, was that one of her husbands literally kicked the teeth out of her mouth. To emphasize this she removed her dentures to show she had no teeth left.

Ironically, she also claimed that most lesbians hate effeminate gay males. She said if your going to be a gay guy that was fine, but she claimed you should be gay without trying to act like a female.

I thought that was fascinating.

Rage

 

[American Rage]

I'm a "fan" of equal treatment for all Americans under the law, who are engaging in lawful activities. If that makes me something "name-able" in your mind, I'll wear whatever name you choose with pride. Because the Constitution, which I support above all else, is the supreme Law of the Land, and it's purpose is to protect Americans from abuses both by government AND other Americans who might not agree with others' activities.

EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. Without it, we're just Iran....

But according to Federalist # 78, the court's aren't following the Constitution. At that point in time, we're arguably another nation on the decline.

Read Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lycurgus, Bentham, Black, Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke, along with Greek, Roman, and British history, particularly during the Stuarts and Tudors, along with the experiences of the French prior to the revolution, and one will began to see why the great philosophers reviled and hated those who turned and twisted the law to suit their own purposes and agendas. I side with the above. And I suspect many more would too if they were only educated with the truth, instead of being indoctrinated with falsehoods.

Rage

 

[Dennis Olson]

AR, the issue for me isn't how twisted and perverted our laws have become WRT the Constitution. You and I are 100% on the same page on that issue. My point is that there is no place in the Constitution that says, "except for homosexuals." If it DID say that, I'd be all for treating them differently. But it DOESN'T say that, does it? Nor does it say "except for women," and yet a Constitutional Amendment was necessary to force MEN to allow them their right to vote!

 

[American Rage]

AR, the issue for me isn't how twisted and perverted our laws have become WRT the Constitution. You and I are 100% on the same page on that issue. My point is that there is no place in the Constitution that says, "except for homosexuals." If it DID say that, I'd be all for treating them differently. But it DOESN'T say that, does it? Nor does it say "except for women," and yet a Constitutional Amendment was necessary to force MEN to allow them their right to vote!

And that's the point. Since it arose, Common law has always made homosexuality a crime against nature. It has only been with the organized PR campaign, which began after the so-called "Stonewall Riots" in 1969 that this has changed. No where has this change, that I know of, come through a democratic vote, but always through judicial interpretation. That's why I keep making the homosexual/serial killer analogy.

Just b/c something taste good doesn't make it good. And just because something tastes bad doesn't mean it isn't good for you. (A paraphrase from Socrates)

Today, it's a battle of hearts and minds, in many areas besides the gay question. Unfortunately, half the argument is being cut out by those who wish to stifle debate in order to pass their agenda. The gay debate is the perfect example.

Rage

 

[Dennis Olson]

If homosexuality were still illegal, I would be in complete agreement with you. If it's made illegal again at some point, I will support THAT as well. It's the same for me on abortion. It's legal right now, so I'm okay with it. I find the practice abhorrant, but it's legal. If it becomes illegal again at some point, I'll support that as well (and be happier about it). But treating someone differently under the law for engaging in LEGAL activity is absolutely unconstitutional, and I absolutely reject such treatment.

 

[American Rage]

If homosexuality were still illegal, I would be in complete agreement with you. If it's made illegal again at some point, I will support THAT as well. It's the same for me on abortion. It's legal right now, so I'm okay with it. I find the practice abhorrant, but it's legal. If it becomes illegal again at some point, I'll support that as well (and be happier about it). But treating someone differently under the law for engaging in LEGAL activity is absolutely unconstitutional, and I absolutely reject such treatment.

Okay, that I understand. And in reality, I pretty much fill the same way.


Rage

 

[oyster_777]

If homosexuality were still illegal, I would be in complete agreement with you. If it's made illegal again at some point, I will support THAT as well. It's the same for me on abortion. It's legal right now, so I'm okay with it. I find the practice abhorrant, but it's legal. If it becomes illegal again at some point, I'll support that as well (and be happier about it). But treating someone differently under the law for engaging in LEGAL activity is absolutely unconstitutional, and I absolutely reject such treatment.

So if certain groups were to get their way and lower the age for consentual sex to age of 12, you'd agree because its legal?

There's a huge problem here in North America... everyone is so afraid to say and do the right thing because someone might sue them...

Wrong is wrong, right is right, ... have we been so dumbed down we can t even think to distinguish these simple truths?

 

[Dennis Olson]

Yes, wrong is wrong and right is right. I agree. But if someone is doing something decreed to be LEGAL, they cannot be treated differently under the law for engaging in that activity. If the age of consent for sex were lowered to 12, people engaging in sexual activities with them could/should not be discriminated against. Would *I* personally approve of that behavior? No. But it'd be legal.

Wrong is wrong, and right is right. Legal is legal and illegal is illegal.

 

[Harbinger]

If homosexuality were still illegal, I would be in complete agreement with you. If it's made illegal again at some point, I will support THAT as well. It's the same for me on abortion. It's legal right now, so I'm okay with it. I find the practice abhorrant, but it's legal. If it becomes illegal again at some point, I'll support that as well (and be happier about it). But treating someone differently under the law for engaging in LEGAL activity is absolutely unconstitutional, and I absolutely reject such treatment.

I'm a "fan" of equal treatment for all Americans under the law, who are engaging in lawful activities. If that makes me something "name-able" in your mind, I'll wear whatever name you choose with pride. Because the Constitution, which I support above all else, is the supreme Law of the Land, and it's purpose is to protect Americans from abuses both by government AND other Americans who might not agree with others' activities.

EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. Without it, we're just Iran....

Alrighty....stay where ever the wind blows.....if being a Christian is illegal....stop being one.....If its illegal to be straight...go gay! If abortion is legal ....go do it......W.T.H. I must have missed something some where.....which by the way...I might fall but I do try to up hold the Bible before anything else.....

 

[Dennis Olson]

If someone engages in "legal activity" (however you choose to define it), Constitutional protections apply.

Or in your mind is that NOT true? If you feel that way, please explain why in legal/Constitutional terms....

 

[Harbinger]

If someone engages in "legal activity" (however you choose to define it), Constitutional protections apply.

Or in your mind is that NOT true? If you feel that way, please explain why in legal/Constitutional terms....

Ok...what's your opinion on reparations??

 

[Dennis Olson]

Reparations are IMO unconstitutional. No one alive ever kept slaves, and no one alive ever WAS a slave. There are no "guilty" or "repressed/owned" parties in this country.

But you already KNOW my position on that issue, since you've been here for THREE YEARS.