Gay Marriage?

[Chreteau]

What are your thoughts on gay marriage?

From the White House yesterday:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 30, 2004

Statement by the President

September 30, 2004

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today, a bipartisan majority of U.S. Representatives voted in favor of a constitutional amendment affirming the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I am disappointed that the House failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote. Because activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in defending traditional marriage. I welcome the important debate underway across America on this issue.

[Fried Squirrel]

Evil. And nasty.

[Paco103]

not to me!

But if they want to get married to each other, how does that hurt me?

[HatePirate]

I don't care if it's legal or not. Doesn't hurt me either way, and if it were legal, and I were getting married, I wouldn't consider my marriage any less sacred just because some homos can do the same if they please. People need to define what is sacred to them themselves, not have the government declare it for them. Why not outlaw divorces and prenups? Both of them violate the oath that marriage is just as much as gay marriage violates the concept.

[ColorOfSakura]

I don't feel that gay marriage violates or demoralizes anybody else's marriage. IF they want to call it something other than "marriage", which as I know to be a religious term, then that's fine. Just as long as Gay Marriage is of equal standing to Heterosexual Marriage. Of course, I'm a little biased on this whole subject in the first place, considering I'd like to get married to my partner someday.

[Chreteau]

I'd like to get married to my partner someday.

I knew you loved me.

[Da,Beers]

its naturaly wrong. Homosexuality is not a gentic trait if it were no one would be homosexual because two homosexual people cant have children with each other and pass down the genes.
Marriage is sacred a union between a man and wife, Even the ancient spartans who were encouraged to be homosexual inorder to increase love for thier fellow soldier realized the difference between a homosexual lover and a wife. Throught ancient western culture grown men had male partners but never claimed them as thier "life partner" and married them.
If people who are homosexual wish to get married they should be allowed a way to do so by the government so that they can have equal treatment under the law but do not call it marriage.
(Basicly MAN+WOMAN=KIDS) Thats how its saposed to be done, Im sorry if i offend every one but in a genetic/biological stand point there is no reason for homosexuality unless humans were monoecous.

[Chreteau]

but do not call it marriage.

"Civil Union"

[Chreteau]

From yesterday's Vice Presidential debate:

MODERATOR: Next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President. I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: Freedom means freedom for everybody. You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions and you used your family as an experience, your family experience as a context for your remarks. Can you describe, then, your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Gwen, you're right. Four years ago in this debate, the subject came up, and I said then, and believe today, that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.

That's a separate question from the issue of whether not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships. Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.

In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature in Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that the President felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned. Now, he sets policy for this administration, and I support the President.

MODERATOR: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.

SENATOR EDWARDS: (removed non-applicable portion) Now, as to this question. Let me say first that I think the Vice President and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy. And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.

I also believe there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships. But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country. No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage. This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.

MODERATOR: New question, but same subject. As the Vice President mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it. Are you trying to have it both ways?

SENATOR EDWARDS: No, I think we've both said the same thing all

along. We both believe that -- this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians, and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits -- for example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital; or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral. Those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in and I suspect the Vice President, himself, does not believe in that.

But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I want to go back, if I can, go back to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment. I want to make sure people understand that the President is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- that is completely unnecessary. Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage. Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about. There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool, and it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.

We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue that divides this country in a way that's solely for political purpose. It's wrong.

MODERATOR: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the Senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that, very much.

MODERATOR: That's it?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: That's it.

Click here for the full transcript.

[ColorOfSakura]

I absolutely was AWESTRUCK on Cheney's stance (not so much in the fact that I know his daughter is a lesbian) on that. I swore, had I not been in a resturant at the moment, I probably would have stood up and clapped.

And I was very happy with what Edwards said as well. And it was nice for him to say those things about Cheney's family.

This is the main reason I'm really really sided to the Democrats in this election. Mainly because they do want gay people to have partnership benefits. The Republicans aren't of that mindset. Really, if it weren't for the fact that I am homosexual, and this matter pertains to me quite a lot, I might vote for Bush.

*sigh* I hate being divided on issues.

Also - DaBeers, no one knows if it is biological, genetic or what. There is only assumption out there. You cannot make a scientific point without the proof. The only scientific point that can be made is that it is a "natural thing", in the sense of look around at many species in the animal kingdom, there are male animals out there who mate with other males. No one knows why. It just happens. There isn't much of an explaination for it either. Now, as for the whole "genetic thing" - it could just be a mutation in a gene. Just like all types of genetic mutations, there are carriers who are not affected by the gene, but they carry it on.

It's just a matter of looking at it from multiple perspectives. My hypothesis is that it's a natural form of population control for humans. Since we ourselves are at the top of the food chain and have no natural predators, there has to be other ways of controlling our population. If you notice, the percentage of homosexuals in the world climbs as the Gross Population grows. Quite a few years back, the statistic was 1 homosexual in 10 people. Translation: 10% of the Gross Population. Today, that percentage has gone up to somewhere around 25%. Not because there are simply more people, but because if there are too many people, then we cannot survive.

Just my idea on the matter.

[Chreteau]

And I was very happy with what Edwards said as well. And it was nice for him to say those things about Cheney's family.

My personal take on it is that Edwards said to piss Cheney off. Although it was worded to sound nice, it was a subtle goad under the guise of a compliment. Cheney understand that fact, and rather than rise to the bait, he answered the moderator's question, then put a very blunt end to the topic.

[ogre]

its naturaly wrong. Homosexuality is not a gentic trait if it were no one would be homosexual because two homosexual people cant have children with each other and pass down the genes.
.

I can not agree with you more. The point here is that it would not make possible the natual seletivity,which can only be acheived by sex-linked inheritance. You just can not call it marriage. But we need to respect homos anytime.

[Chreteau]

homos

That was respectful.

[solid_dave]

ok, the science part is disputable, because humans are oddballs in the history of evolution, we're the first being that has emotions, feelings, and inductive skills... so because of those things, science doesn't apply to well.

People are people to me. I like Women, personally. But every Gay person knows that they forfiet the ablity to reproduce, the go about it different ways. Just because you're gay doesn't make you an unfit parent, and it certainly doesn't mean you live your life in a miserably non-conformist fashion. Breaking the rules is what we do best as Americans, so if it's a stereotype, let it get bucked. A couples a couple..... whether Darwinism aplies or not.

I don't understand Gay guys, but at the same time, I don't think they're wrong. Some people look down on me cause I happen to like Miller High Life... if yer big enough to be a hypocrit about beer, I guess yer big enough to be a hypocrit about anything.

and cut out the "queer" and "fag" and "homo" stuff, don't like name calling.

[ogre]

homos

That was respectful.

Actually I did not realize it is a derogatory/impolite word.I find American people call same-sex union homosexuality,and people with this tendency gays or lesbians or simply homos. I was getting to realize just when I saw your note on the board. I am sorry ............. Whatever.

[Chreteau]

Actually I did not realize it is a derogatory/impolite word.I find American people call same-sex union homosexuality,and people with this tendency gays or lesbians or simply homos. I was getting to realize just when I saw your note on the board. I am sorry ............. Whatever.

Nobody can fault you for a language barrier. Where are you from?

[HatePirate]

and cut out the "queer" and "fag" and "homo" stuff, don't like name calling

Most gay people with a maturity level higher than a teenager's don't care if you refer to them as a queer, fag, or homo. What about "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?" They don't mind being called queers. Dave Foley and Scott Thompson (gay actors/comedians) joke about terms like "prohomo" and use derogitory words for gays all the time. Nobody gives a shit.

Oh, and what John Edwards said about states not reckognizing each others' marriages is complete bullshit too.

Bush, however, is correct in saying that a federal marriage amendment would protect states' rights by releasing states from the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause's requirement that states recognize marriages conducted in other states.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which also freed states from any requirement to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. Bush now argues that if activist courts can override state law, they can override the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Hence, he argues, the need for an amendment.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 57K381.DTL

States do recognize each others' marriages. I can't believe Edwards, a trial lawyer, said such a blatant lie and noone caught it.

[ColorOfSakura]

and cut out the "queer" and "fag" and "homo" stuff, don't like name calling

Most gay people with a maturity level higher than a teenager's don't care if you refer to them as a queer, fag, or homo. What about "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?" They don't mind being called queers. Dave Foley and Scott Thompson (gay actors/comedians) joke about terms like "prohomo" and use derogitory words for gays all the time. Nobody gives a shit.

Actually, that's a falsification. It's an unfair type of thing. Gays can make reference to their homosexuality in any wording, but straight people using that language is considered derogitory. Same way with black people being able to refer to themselves and other black people as "niggers", but they won't let white people do it because of racism.

It's not a fair thing, but yeah. I personally hate anyone using the words "fag", "homo" and "queer". If you want to call me something, call me gay. The other wordings are just harsh sounding.

[Chreteau]

States do recognize each others' marriages.

They are not required to recognize out of state marriages. That's the difference.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) says no state shall be required to give legal recognition to any same-sex marriage performed in another state.

It also says that for the purposes of interpreting federal law, including the rules on who can receive benefits under federal programs, “the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

Yale Law School Professor Lea Brilmayer, an expert on the conflict between laws of different states, testified in March to a Senate Judiciary Committee panel that more than 100 years of precedents show that states have in some cases refused to recognize marriages performed in other states, if those marriages were deemed to violate local public policy.

The "public policy" doctrine, she said, "frees a state from having to recognize decisions by other states that offend deeply held local values."

For example, she cited cases in which states refused to recognize out-of-state marriages between cousins, between uncles and nieces, between two women and one man, and even between a man and a woman who had been married within one year of one of them getting a divorce.

[ogre]

Actually I did not realize it is a derogatory/impolite word.I find American people call same-sex union homosexuality,and people with this tendency gays or lesbians or simply homos. I was getting to realize just when I saw your note on the board. I am sorry ............. Whatever.

Nobody can fault you for a language barrier. Where are you from?

Thank you. China.

[jamal]

its naturaly wrong. Homosexuality is not a gentic trait if it were no one would be homosexual because two homosexual people cant have children with each other and pass down the genes.
Marriage is sacred a union between a man and wife, Even the ancient spartans who were encouraged to be homosexual inorder to increase love for thier fellow soldier realized the difference between a homosexual lover and a wife. Throught ancient western culture grown men had male partners but never claimed them as thier "life partner" and married them.
If people who are homosexual wish to get married they should be allowed a way to do so by the government so that they can have equal treatment under the law but do not call it marriage.
(Basicly MAN+WOMAN=KIDS) Thats how its saposed to be done, Im sorry if i offend every one but in a genetic/biological stand point there is no reason for homosexuality unless humans were miagreeonoecous.

[Fried Squirrel]

What was the point of a blank reply?

[tiffybird24]

huh, i didn't know you could do a blank reply??? prolly someones mistake...knowing me i would do something like that.