Vito: How about answering the questions I raised in my post? Please read it in its entirety, and answer the questions I asked, thuthfully.

And that goes for everyone.

HOPEFULLY, they'd act like mature human beings who have the compassion to let other people be without worrying about what THEY are doing (because YOU should be worrying about YOURSELF)... and, besides that, such a boy would often react in such a way as he's taught by his parental units: and if he's taught Hate and Prejudice, then hell, I know how he'd act: just like YOU!

A world in which two people who love each other should very well have the right to marry -- no matter their sex, age, race, color, creed, or anything else. God forbid, though, right?

Amen to Geoff's post. A-fuckin'-men.

A fucked up world loaded of mentally disturbed people having relationships with partners of the same goddamn sex.

Jesus Christ, so just because I personally think it is not right the Gay marriage issue, then YOU think my parents had taught me Hate and Prejudice? I just think it doesn't go right.

Nature has it that a man and a woman shall bear the beauty of creating life. Now if that same beauty of creating life were true for a man and a man or a woman and a woman then same sex relationships are fine with me! But nature dosent work that way and was not intended too, just as the sun does not rise in the west and set in the east.

Oh, so can a 9 year old boy already act maturely ?

Greater (bigger) evil than, say, murder? Is it bigger than adultry (over 50% of the population) or divorce (about 50% of the population)? Hmmm... "the greatest moral and social evil"... Wow, bigger than the 10 Commandments even... Damn, I had no idea...

I'm not picking on you, just the words you chose to use.

Yes, of course. What's this have to do with anything?

Here's another article I happened to find.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37443

It is wonderful to find people out there who are thinking exactly what I'm thinking, and yet can put it into words so much better than I ever could.

Of course, that's why they're paid to do it !!

Apple

Newsflash: There are loads of "mentally disturbed" people "fucking up the world" who are having sex with members of the OPPOSITE sex.

Instead of focusing so much on same sex couples CONSENSUALLY choosing to love each other and express their affection in ways that they choose, I would be more worried about rapists and pedophiles who TAKE what they want at the expense of hurting and emotionally scarring their victims. What is really fucking up MY world? Which of these scenarios am *I* afraid of????

Apple, again I read the article in it's entirety with an open mind. But one thing doesn't set well with me:

"What about bisexuals who love both men and women? Should they be denied the right to marry one of each? "

This is just crazy. There is an assumption that bi- and homo- sexuals are predatory and cannot be faithful to one partner. I know hetero men who find out a friend is gay and AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that they may be a "target" of said gay man's affection. That is like saying a hetero man is attracted to EVERY woman he meets. It is assumed bi- and homo- sexual people have no selective process in choosing a mate.

Therefore in the above quote, if we are talking about love, why would a bisexual person wish to marry two people (one of each)? It is possible - sure! - just as a man could WANT to marry a blonde woman and a brunette woman (one of each )and a woman would want to marry a corporate egg head man and a male athlete (to have one of each).

Of course in every controversial issue, there are going to be extreme examples. There ARE probably bisexual people who would want nothing more than to marry both a man and a woman. But I think we are just talking about same-sex unions across the board - couples who consensually live as life partners anyway and want the same benefits as hetero couples.

The constitution has become meaningless, there are so many clauses and exceptions to it, and with stupid judges aloud to do whatever they want, this act of allowing gay marriages is just lame. I have lost all trust in our consitution.

Thats all I have to say about that, MARRIAGE IS NOT BETWEEN 2 MEN!

Sure we are ... right now.

Dolce with all due respect - I'm sure you truly belive you're reading these articles with 'an open mind'. But in both cases, your responses indicate that you are not.

Beyond that, I'll let the articles speak for themselves.

Apple

Question: these problems have been going on for years and years. What made it come to a flash point now?

Why does it have to be made into a constitutional amendment? Aren't there other ways to solve these problems or give the people what they need without this amendment?


People live together all the time without being married and many things can be handled with a regular contract which is recognized my every court in every state in the country?

As always I hope that things are equal both ways for the good and for the bad. Things break up and they are under the same penalty as any other divorce couples. Straight or Gay.

Now on the other hand many Single people have always been hurt tax wise more then married couples and they haven't bitched. Anyone can get health insurance for anyone if they just pay the price. So what are the real issues here.

Is it that important to get a piece of paper from the government? Millions of live together people never have over the years? They live together learn to hate each other and move out and on with no strings. Hell, isn't a relationship bound just by what the two people involed feel about it.

Au contraire, I DO open my mind to other points of view. Thus why I only had exception with the one highlighted point in the article in which I expressed my viewpoint.

Ok, so this is not an issue about the acceptance of homosexuality in society. Granted.

But I have already discussed my views in support of traditional marriage - BUT - I also don't feel like people should be "labeled" or categorized in order to have the opportunity to reap the rewards of a lifetime of happiness and bliss with the partner of their CHOICE.

I have been saying all along maybe the answer is some kind of cohabitation agreement. Opponents say that an idea like that may cause regular friends to marry just to reap better insurance benefits for each other. Like that could not happen now with heterosexual friends? People cheat the system all the time. Not just the same sex couples.

If you get married on a beach by the Captain of a cruise ship....is that a true sacrament of marriage in the Church's eyes? Is a wedding at the Drive Up Wedding Chapel in Vegas a "real" marriage? Can Britney Spears now claim she has been married once before after HER little drunken Vegas fiasco?

"Traditional" marriage has had a lot of gray areas for a long time. Same sex unions make up a relatively small percent of the gray area right now.

Now THAT I agree with; problem is, some have already admitted that it is not enough.

Yesterday in NY, many gay couples were turned down for marriage licenses. The tagline of the day was that all went in with smiles and came out in tears, holding a piece of paper outlining some form of that 'cohabitation agreement'. They want to be MARRIED. One woman being interviewed for the radio news cried something to the effect of, 'How can they disregard our personal feelings...'.

Apple

Marriage licenses will be like automobile ones. Class 1 Class 2 , commercial, ECT. Each allowing you to do different things and have different rights.

Vito The Godfather -- everyone stereotypes and typecasts homosexuals as sex craved beasts who just want some dick. Get off it, because they're people just like you and I... They just have different taste in people than we do. Just because their taste varies, doesn't mean their sex drive does. Just because they're gay, doesn't mean they're always out looking for a lay and always in gay bars stripping. That's stereotypes. And most of them really are great human beings.

So, again, there's no reasons they shouldn't have the same rights we do. Discluding someone from something because of what they are is prejudice, weather you'd like to believe it or not.

Don Pope -- of course a man and a woman are to breed... But there's really enough of that going on. The world is heading towards over-population. I can see if homosexuals were outnumbering heterosexuals by the millions and the birth rate was going down. But the birth rate is actually climbing up and there's millions of new babies being born every week. I'm sure the small percent of homsexual population won't ruin it for the rest of us. They aren't killing our human race -- there's plenty of new people being brought into our world. And that, my friend, is just a poor excuse to disclude gays from marriage.

Even so, a homosexual getting married won't change that they won't breed anyhow. So let them. They deserve rights like you and I.

Jeez plawrence look what you started!

Back to your original question: Should there be a constitutional amendment? Here is the Preamble to the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Interesting words "a more perfect Union" Can there really be something "more perfect?" I suppose Pres. Bush is proposing an amendment under the "insure domestic Tranquility" guideline.

Keep in mind the Bill of Rights are in the Constitution. So on that basis, I think an amendment regarding marriage would be consistent with a Bill of Rights. I don't think the States should have different rules or laws for marriage. The institution is more universal than unique to the demographics of an individual State.

Now, whether same sex marriage should be allowed? Thats another debate. I'm a hetero supporter. Our country has too many exceptions to the rules. Our standards of morality and quality life are constantly compromised in the name of freedom of speech or "its my right." Respect for one another and the dignity of an individual have become "old-fashioned." I'm for keeping it simple. There are Ten Commandments. If you follow them, you can't get in trouble. Come to think of it, our Constitution was based on them. Go figure.

I dont know why I chose to be silent from this thread but for some reason I did.

The town of New Paltz is like 5 minutes from my house. I drive through there all the time.

I have also met the mayor, the one that is starting all this shit. Hes a pretty cool guy. Doesnt seem like he is a mayor. Just thougth I would share that.

Doesn't act like he's a Mayor, either.
I guess he thought he'd take 'cool' to new heights.

Apple

O dont get me wrong...

I am as conservative on this gay marriage shit as anybody. dont think Im tight with this guy or anything.

ragging:

Isn't New Paltz a college town (SUNY-New Paltz)? Or is the town bigger with the Univerity only a small part? Also, I've heard they have a top ranking dance and drama program. Therefore, perhaps such a liberal Mayor is really representing his consituency well.

He certainly is...since his consituency is obviously interested in breaking the law.

And ragingbull2003: I didn't mistake your post to mean you agree, or are 'tight with' this guy; only that you met him and he's pretty cool, just like you say.

Incidentally, I heard the New Paltz Mayor do a radio interview last Sunday, and I agree that he certainly did seem, cool, levelheaded and concerned for his 'people'. He seemed to be doing what he's doing as a matter of the heart. That's really nice except that the fact is he was defying the law. He seemed a little more indignant over this past week, once he was served papers and yet vowed to marry more gay couples over the coming weekend...unless advised otherwise by his attorneys.

I haven't yet heard what they advised him.

Apple

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anthony Lombardi:

"Don Pope -- of course a man and a woman are to breed... But there's really enough of that going on. The world is heading towards over-population. I can see if homosexuals were outnumbering heterosexuals by the millions and the birth rate was going down. But the birth rate is actually climbing up and there's millions of new babies being born every week. I'm sure the small percent of homsexual population won't ruin it for the rest of us. They aren't killing our human race -- there's plenty of new people being brought into our world. And that, my friend, is just a poor excuse to disclude gays from marriage."

My argument had nothing to do with population at all, I was stating that nature intended a male and a female to be together, thats why together they have the power of creating a life. As in if nature intended homosexual and lesbian to be together they would be granted the power to create a life as well.

Um....no.

By your logic, infertile couples are not eligible to "be together".

My husband has had a vasectomy.

I am also not able to get pregnant.

He is a man. I am a woman. But nature does not allow us to procreate anymore. Should we not be together? Or will you say that as a man and a woman, though we have outlived our usefullness we are exempt from your nature rule?

Homosexuality has been alive and well for centuries. It is only in the last century that people have been able to express themselves. Would society be better off if those people kept themselves hidden from view? I'd be more worried about people expressing themselves through child pornography than worrying about what two consenting adults do with each other.

Something I read today: The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.

A homosexual has the power to create life. Actually, a lot of them donate sperm. They have the ability to create life -- they just choose not to. They choose to be with the same sex... That doesn't mean they "don't have the ability." They can't do it together -- but they can with donations. Some handicapped/retarded people can't breed, so I guess we should banish them from marriage, too, right? Give me a break. They very well can reproduce -- and some do -- but some choose not to. That's their own choice and they're free to make it.

And Amen, LDV!!! Nicely put. Said like a true prodigy.

its also not natural to donote sperm, but my point is god and nature did not intend lesbians and gays to be together not giving them the abilty to create life. I see your having trouble understanding the point. You have a head right? lets say that your head when used naturally and normally for thinking, processing info,etc etc. That represents straight people, now when you use your head to bang it against the wall using it as a hammer, which is not what your head is intended to do, and that represents gays,lesbians. just like nature did not intend two males and two females to be together. My example is bad, i know, but it shows my point.