inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

[toasty]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Fact is just about every state in the US is now on board with the bill, ...


...Come on now Yao, were talking about the union between a man and a woman, a tradition that a man and a woman can be proud of. If we start letting fags marry, whats next? Polygomy having numerous wifes, or maybe a man can marry his favorite goat. Point is Yao, if you allow fags to marry you open the door to a corrosive and pervasive society. Point 1.

The bill lost by more than two thirds in Missouri. :? Fucking sad people still live in caves.

"What happens when we start letting fags :? marry?"

How about a progression of our society? Who fucking cares, really, if gays want to marry? It's not going to ruin any kind of tradition when i marry a woman. In fact, when i get married, the last thing i'm going to be worried about is gay people, and if they're married or not. Who actually thinks about shit like this and lets it bother them? I'll tell you who...the Christian right. I thought you were atheist?

"A Corrosive and pervsive society?"

haha, really, what's not already corrosive about it? Just let people live and make chioces, jeez.

"Then a man will marry his goat?"]

How many people have wanted to marry an animal? I'm guessing the number is pretty slim, except in canada. If there's some freaking weirdo out there that wants to bang his goat behind his closed door, while still paying taxes and contributing to society...then let the fucking weirdo bang his goat in peace for all i care.

This primitive thinking by the christian right against gays is one of the things that makes it tough to vote republican, even though i still do. Give the people a break for fucks sake, and lets move on.

I recognize that this is off the larger point of of this thread, but for the record, here, here -- or hear here -- or here hear -- you get the idea). I was disturbed but regrettably not surprised at the margin by which the gay marriage ban passed in MO. Lots and lots of closed minded, bigoted people in this state, I'm afraid.

Good to know though, that when I ultimately decide to get married, the institution of marriage won't be tainted by some "fag's" desire for equal rights.

Seriously, the preamble to our Constitution, coupled with recent case law and a healthy dose of common sense, makes it very clear that every person is entitled, as an inalienable right, to the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To me, allowing gay people to marry falls squarely within that category. How that impedes the right of a straight person, or anyone for that matter, to enjoy these rights is completely beyond me.

[Yao]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Neuro, thnx for the comments. I still stand by them , but don't worry: I'm not a utopian tree-hugging socialist hippie...I'm just being concerned about the way things are going right now.

As for gay marriage...hell, we also have euthanasia here, legal abortion. Think what you want about my little shitty country (Holland)...but you gotta admit: we're still way ahead of the rest on progressive thinking in those matters. (We should've just been bigger IMO)

I just can't imagine why someone would deny someone else a right in it's own? That is discriminating.
I'm totally for Gay marriage (I have several gay friends, they say I have a cute ass, but I'm saving that for the beautiful woman I'm bound to walk into shortly), Euthanasia and Abortion.

[Marimba]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

well..it seems that I generate some intelligent chating..

[cneill]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Hmmm, seems this thread has gotten a bit off topic, but I'll just go along with it.
As for gay marraige, I really don't give a rat's ass if gays marry in U.S., but I want that issue to be resolved democratically, not by judicial review. I know this means that gays probably wouldn't be able to marry for some time because the majority of the American public is against it, but that's the way democracys work. It takes time for the majority of the general public to change their views. Then, it rarely doubles back. The robust courts of the U.S., aside from acting like Guardians, don't always get it right (by right I mean as judged against the opinion of the demos). Take Roe v Wade for example. Although the case was decided 31 years ago, it is still one of the most hotly debated political issues. Just to be fair - a case they did get right - Brown v Board of Ed. But that was handled differently anyway.

Ok, now I'm way off topic. Sorry. Somebody please take this back on track.

Oh, I know! Perhaps there are US soldiers who are gay and want to marry and are also concerned about having immunity in Latinoamerican countries. There, right back on topic

[neur0t0xin64]

Yao I never said that Holland is a shitty little country, infact I love Holland. There are many things to be learned there. But its undeniable the fact that most of the world is hating on the US, acting as if all of a sudden we have a christian unilaterist president, who is acting as a crusader of the world. Fact is terror groups like Al Queda waged war against the US and our ideology 30 years ago. So now were on the hunt for the agents of death who want to disrupt the the worlds economy through fear and intimidation. And during the offensive if somebody gets caught in the crossfire, SOME people are saying that our boys are gonna have to go infront of an international court to be judged??! If thats why people say that the US is isolating itself from the rest of the world well so be it.

PS: Its a shame others are not feeling me on the gay marriage thing. Its disturbing. Jenks im disappointed in you.

[Jenks]

PS: Its a shame others are not feeling me on the gay marriage thing. Its disturbing. Jenks im disappointed in you.

The only shame is the close minded mongoloid thinking of people like yourself.

[davetlv]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Marimba, sorry seems you're thread has been hijacked. . .

I don't get the big deal about gay marriage. Why usually sensible gay men and lesbians wish to choose this issue to battle on is beyond me. I say these comments as a gay man who was involved with gay/queer politics in the UK for nearly 13 years.

I understand the main arguements being laid on the table by activitists in the US and other countries is an arguement of equality, "If they can do it why can't we!" Forgive me, but i don't believe that just because you can get legally married will necessarily mean you have equality in the society you live in. I also don't believe that its the first step for gaining equality.

I believe there are many misguided gay men and lesbians in our world who , wrongly in my opinion, believe that by having a legally recognised marriage the whole world will all of a sudden become less homophobic and welcome all gay men and lesbians into the main stream! HA HA HA HA

The other point i wish to make is that the whole concept of marriage has been discredited since the advent of instant divorces. Marriage no longer means a life long committment (just the growing tide in the rush for pre-nups is proof of this). Its an institution which is entered into with a get out clause already, in many cases, thought of. And in the long term the only people who will benefit from marriage are lawyers!

I came out of the closet some 19 years ago, one of the things i most enjoy about being gay is the fact that i can define my relationships how i want, without reference to society and its discredited institutions. But thats just me.

I understand the basic need in society for each and every one of us to be equal, but this equality shouldn't be just legal, social equality is a much harder battle, one which should be fought before the legal one, becasue once society backs you then the law will naturally follow. And when that does happen, should gay men and lesbians choose to buy into such things as marriage, then great, let them fool themselves that being married is something great!

But thats just my opinion!

[Jenks]

^ interesting point of view.

i'm of the understanding however that it's not only a rights issue, but a legal issue as well.

being legally married under the eye of the government gives you certain benefits.

if i get married, my wife will be on my company's insurance, because she's my wife.

gay people don't get this advantage, and it's just one of a long line of things that go along with being married under the law.

i still say, it's a rights issue first. regardless wether it's the most important fight for gay people to be fighting at this moment is irrevelant imo...basically it's out government and society telling citizens what they can and cannot do regarding love and marriage. What are we Nazi's? Have we forgotten the human element behind all of this, or are they just GAYS now? Disturbing.

[davetlv]

I understand your point Jenks. Lets looks at the insurance issue. Does your company offer the insurance to non-married heterosexuals? With more and more of heterosexual couple chosing NOT to marry nowadays, surely the fight we should all be having is for partnership rights, which recognise both hetero and gay/lesbian partnerships. Let all of us who choose to live together outside the framework of marriage, but are committed to each other nevertheless, have those same rights. Defacto, no need for marriage!

[toasty]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

To the legal issue with failing to recognize gay marriage, check out the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision from February:

Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.

...

In this case, as in Perez and Loving, a statute deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental legal, personal, and social significance--the institution of marriage--because of a single trait: skin color in Perez and Loving, sexual orientation here. As it did in Perez and Loving, history must yield to a more fully developed understanding of the invidious quality of the discrimination.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf

[Yao]

Yao I never said that Holland is a shitty little country, infact I love Holland.

Eh, don't worry. Those were my words. I don't love Holland, even though I wasborn here. Not until we get a government that has balls.

There are many things to be learned there. But its undeniable the fact that most of the world is hating on the US, acting as if all of a sudden we have a christian unilaterist president, who is acting as a crusader of the world.

Actually, whichever way I look at it, I think he is...but I'm not hating on the US. Just Bush. Although I'm still not convinced Kerry is the man...

Fact is terror groups like Al Queda waged war against the US and our ideology 30 years ago. So now were on the hunt for the agents of death who want to disrupt the the worlds economy through fear and intimidation.

Problem is this: terrorism is undeerground, and can only effectively be combated underground. Bush is treating it as a conventional war, disrupting whole countries and economies in his "war on terrorism". Fighting terrorism is a case of intelligence, not plain and brutal violence.

And during the offensive if somebody gets caught in the crossfire, SOME people are saying that our boys are gonna have to go infront of an international court to be judged??! If thats why people say that the US is isolating itself from the rest of the world well so be it.

Why the f*ck is every American acting as if this Court has only been founded to sue Americans???!!! Stop doing that, I"m getting really irritated by that! It is meant for every single individual coming from any of the involved countries. That includes us, Europeans, too. And fact is, that it is and will mostly be used to bring the people on top to justice, not just some soldiers. It's the big guys that committed or ordered horrific war-crimes that go there. Please, please, start realizing that. America's subscribing is not needed to put your guys to the stand, it is mostly a sing of commitment to a fair and good way of performing your military actions or interventions. And, never forget: don't take things like that personal just because it could also affect you.

PS: Its a shame others are not feeling me on the gay marriage thing. Its disturbing. Jenks im disappointed in you.

Sorry dude, guess you're on your own there, but...respect.

[dohturdima]

Gay marriage - it's about trying to change the language of an institution that traditionally has always a union between a man and a woman.

There's lots wrong with it. For example, once definitions (wording) starts having a different connotation, the interpretation of law (yes, the Constitution) can be interpreted as one may please. And, fortunately, that is not the case - amendments aside, US Constitution's wording has not changed - and one of the primary reasons is traditional connotations ascribed to its wording. THAT is where real problem lies.

I am not against gays having rights heterosexuals posess in marriage-alimony, etc etc? - but it is requisite that name the gay union be something else.

[toasty]

Gay marriage - it's about trying to change the language of an institution that traditionally has always a union between a man and a woman.

There's lots wrong with it. For example, once definitions (wording) starts having a different connotation, the interpretation of law (yes, the Constitution) can be interpreted as one may please. And, fortunately, that is not the case - amendments aside, US Constitution's wording has not changed - and one of the primary reasons is traditional connotations ascribed to its wording. THAT is where real problem lies.

I am not against gays having rights heterosexuals posess in marriage-alimony, etc etc? - but it is requisite that name the gay union be something else.

You know, you're right. If we start letting gay people get "married," then the Constitution and all of the laws regarding marriage will be interpreted to apply to gay people, too. Uh, is this a bad thing?

People opposed to gay marriage often argue that it is essentially a matter of semantics, that allowing civil unions is OK, but calling it marriage is not. We've learned over the years is this country that "separate but equal" is anything but -- "civil unions" are a backdoor way, if you'll pardon the pun, of creating a "separate but equal" way of distinguishing between heterosexual and gay love and relationships.

For those of you that oppose gay marriage, what is it you are afraid will happen? The gaying of America?

I would add that your assessment of the significance of the language of the Constitution staying the same doesn't really tell the whole story. Amongst those that are in the business of interpreting the Constitution (i.e., the Courts), there are essentially two camps -- strict constructionists, who apply the Constitution strictly as it was written, and another group of jurists that are mindful that times have changed some and that it needs to be read and interpreted in light of the current times. Of course, I'm fairly certain that "marriage" appears nowhere in the Constitution, so it is largely a moot point as to that, but the point is that these documents can be validly interpreted while taking into account the current thoughts of the nation.

[the sun the sea]

Gay marriage - it's about trying to change the language of an institution that traditionally has always a union between a man and a woman.

There's lots wrong with it. For example, once definitions (wording) starts having a different connotation, the interpretation of law (yes, the Constitution) can be interpreted as one may please. And, fortunately, that is not the case - amendments aside, US Constitution's wording has not changed - and one of the primary reasons is traditional connotations ascribed to its wording. THAT is where real problem lies.

I am not against gays having rights heterosexuals posess in marriage-alimony, etc etc? - but it is requisite that name the gay union be something else.

you make some good points, but i think that we have to move forward in our thinking about this issue.

it's not fair to gay people that they can't get married.

so what if our heritage said that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women. do we not have the power to change it?

i think we do. it's just a matter of time that it will get changed and the people that oppose it will be obsolete in their thinking.