Username [Register?]: | Password [Lost Password?]: Save Password?
Bottom of Page
INTL v5.0 > Discussion Forums > The "Song A Day" Thread Forum > Gay Rights - Call Your Senators > Viewing Thread
Also Here: 1 guest. Moderated by: D drahnier
Page: [ 1 2 3 ] [ Thread Views: 4900 | Total Posts: 66 ]
Rate This Thread: Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
EscalatorToHell

elusive and illustrious

Ballkicks: (+177 / -80)
Posts: 1361 (0.218)
Reg. Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cornfields, Ohio
Gender: Female
(Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:10:48 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

A vote on the Bush-backed Federal Marriage Amendment is expected to happen on Wednesday. Debate is taking place within the Senate over this amendment.
A number of news sites have a lot more information on this, for two different views:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/july/0712_bush_supports_fma.shtml

http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay.php?artid=380

The rest of the story can easily be found there or through a google news search.

Hopefully I am not the only one deeply disturbed by the government looking to gain a horrendous amount of power over the lives of its citizens. If passed, this would be the second constitutional amendment to TAKE AWAY the rights of United States citizens. The first was for prohibition.

Passing this amendment would mean that discrimination against gays would be embedded in the political system. It'd be a fixture in our own constitution.

I'm not a huge gay marraige advocate, but I recognize how wrong this is. Because of that, I plan on calling Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, the senators of Ohio, tomorrow afternoon to voice my opinion.

The senators are supposed to represent us, so if you disagree with the Federal Marriage Amendment, I urge you to call your Senators direct and give them your two cents. This is incredibly urgent, as it's expected to be voted on Wednesday the 14th.

I will dig up a list of the Senators' phone numbers and post a link as soon as possible.

EDIT- this site is pretty fool proof. Click on your state, and the senators and representatives' phone numbers show up. The senators should be the first ones on that page.
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
This reply was last edited on 07-12-04 08:15:57 PM by EscalatorToHell.
Menion
INTL Premium Member
Regular

Man-Onions

Ballkicks: (+122 / -35)
Posts: 905 (0.147)
Reg. Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
Gender: Male
Reply 1 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:13:04 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I agree.. that's ridiculous.

Taking away the right to marry whoever you want to is just... not right.


VERY unconstitutional.
Menion
INTL Premium Member
Regular

Man-Onions

Ballkicks: (+122 / -35)
Posts: 905 (0.147)
Reg. Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
Gender: Male
Reply 2 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:22:27 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Forgive the dbl post, but there is one more problem with this, other than just denying the human right to choose... restricting the sanctity of marriage with a Federal Law is very much bordering on mixing church and State, which is one of the founding principles of the American Bill of Rights. There will be no religous influence in the political administration of our nation. I think the inverse should hold true as well, the state has no right to tell you who you can/ cannot marry.


MY two cents, and for those of you that live in texas, senators name & numbers are:


Cornyn, John - (R - TX) Class II
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2934
Web Form: cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html


Hutchison, Kay - (R - TX) Class I
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5922
Web Form: hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm
sobriquet
GHEY SO-CAL METRO fuck demi instead I know I would

Ballkicks: (+15 / -5)
Posts: 34 (0.006)
Reg. Date: Jul 2004
Location: South OC
Gender: Male
Reply 3 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:23:35 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I wrote an editorial for our school newspaper on this issue a few months back. It analyzed the original greek texts that Corinthians was written in. (I'm not even touching the Old Testament)

In a nutshell, in the original greek (that Corinthians was written in), the word arsenkoites is used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the passage commonly cited as shunning homosexuals. However, this word merely translates to male prostitute, and it was only later translations that warped that word to mean homosexuals. Only 5 of 19 bibles I looked at even used the word homosexuality in that passage, all of them happening to be 'New' translations.

Obviously this only addresses one of multiple arguments against homosexuality, but it always seems to be the main point.

PS. Sorry if that wasnt written clearly, I'm in a rush and will probably polish that a bit later.
Tyr

I cybered with Kayte

Ballkicks: (+479 / -130)
Posts: 4815 (0.721)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Then and Now
Gender: Male
Reply 4 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:26:05 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Marriage is between a man and a woman. While I have no problem with homosexuality, advocating the fuck for one and all for fucking theory, I do not see sexual preferences as a basis for, like the President said, a sacrament.

Maybe I'm a right-wing conservative asshole on this one, but if I'm a parent, I know I wouldn't be comfortable with my children being around children with homosexual parents. I wouldn't condemn them if they were homosexuals, but I don't want them growing up thinking that the love they see between a man and his wife is the same between a man and a man. I'm not saying that love can't exist in the latter situation, but it's simply something I don't want to impart on my children, and certainly something I would want to avoid having imparted on them by a third party.
Vervet
Anti-wiki

Ballkicks: (+875 / -84)
Posts: 4611 (0.715)
Reg. Date: Nov 2002
Location: mew
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 5 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:29:16 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

There was something on NPR earlier, regarding this.

Does anyone have any sort of support statistics? What percentage are in favor, and what against?

Virginia Senator Conctact Information, from http://www.senate.gov/:
Allen, George - (R - VA) Class I
204 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: allen.senate.gov/email.html

Warner, John - (R - VA) Class II
225 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2023
Web Form: warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.htm
Nickolati
Moderator
...moved to Idaho?

the cumstain that is left on the wall 11 years after the party has ended

Ballkicks: (+611 / -61)
Posts: 4927 (0.813)
Reg. Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boise
Gender: Male
Reply 6 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:34:36 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Tyr:
Maybe I'm a right-wing conservative asshole on this one, but if I'm a parent, I know I wouldn't be comfortable with my children being around children with homosexual parents. I wouldn't condemn them if they were homosexuals, but I don't want them growing up thinking that the love they see between a man and his wife is the same between a man and a man. I'm not saying that love can't exist in the latter situation, but it's simply something I don't want to impart on my children, and certainly something I would want to avoid having imparted on them by a third party.


That is just another prejudice. Love is love man.

The United States government has no right to regulate love. This is just another meager attempt to stamp out something that the fundie voters aren't comfortable with.

If you have a problem with homosexuality around your children, that is your problem and you can deal with it how you see fit. It's not the government's job to get rid of things that we don't agree with. It's their job to protect them as long as they are causing no harm.
"She had dyed red hair, a forest green dress, and a pair of kitchen knives. She was the last time I ever saw a rose."
Tyr

I cybered with Kayte

Ballkicks: (+479 / -130)
Posts: 4815 (0.721)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Then and Now
Gender: Male
Reply 7 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:40:57 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
It's not the government's job to get rid of things that we don't agree with.


Uh, yes it is. E.g. bigamy, rape, larson, etc.

Quote:
It's their job to protect them as long as they are causing no harm.


How do we know what kind of harm it could potentially cause? Is it innocuous, or isn't it? That's what I don't know, and I'd rather stick with 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it'.

Quote:
Love is love man.


That's rather subjectional, don't you think? I could take that out of context in a snap, but I'm not going to be foolish and pretend like the love that some cannibal serial rapist thinks he has is the same as a homosexual's. But the point still stands (somewhat).
asthetik
I SHOULD READ THE HALL OF REJECTS MORE OFTEN!

making jabs at each other is what the internet is for you fucking idiots. oh, and for stealing things.

Ballkicks: (+333 / -161)
Posts: 3016 (0.46)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 8 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:41:00 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I'm a firm believer that sexuality is not chosen, therfore any influence a child with gay parents would have is neglible. If anything your child would be able to learn at an early age how gay people differ from heterosexuals and with the aid of childhood innocence would perhaps be able to grow up free from the prejudice that is felt by the majority of the current generation.

Anyhow, Vervet, the general consensus is that the amendment has very little chance of passing. I was in Washington a few weeks ago and the people I talked with (Ted Kennedy's staff) made it sound like that chances are slim to none and slim just left town.

Now, back to gay rights.

I really doubt that gay people make a concious decision to be gay. With all the social stigma surrounding homosexuality and the difficulty that one must face up growing up gay in an overtly hetero world, I don't think too many people would make a decision to be gay. Therefore, if gay people don't choose to be gay, why should they be punished for something beyond their control?

About this time a hundred years ago a similar amendment was propose to ban interracial marriage. This amendment is sadly all too similar.
asthetik - year 04/05

the only difference between a caprice and a life-long passion is that the caprice lasts a little longer
This reply was last edited on 07-12-04 08:46:03 PM by asthetik.
Menion
INTL Premium Member
Regular

Man-Onions

Ballkicks: (+122 / -35)
Posts: 905 (0.147)
Reg. Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
Gender: Male
Reply 9 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:43:21 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. While I have no problem with homosexuality, advocating the fuck for one and all for fucking theory, I do not see sexual preferences as a basis for, like the President said, a sacrament.

Maybe I'm a right-wing conservative asshole on this one, but if I'm a parent, I know I wouldn't be comfortable with my children being around children with homosexual parents. I wouldn't condemn them if they were homosexuals, but I don't want them growing up thinking that the love they see between a man and his wife is the same between a man and a man. I'm not saying that love can't exist in the latter situation, but it's simply something I don't want to impart on my children, and certainly something I would want to avoid having imparted on them by a third party.



Now I have to sincerely disagree with that.

You say Plus, I say minus.
The fact that you married heterosexually and had a child is no more significant a paretage than two men that married homosexually and adopted a child.

Why should any person be able to tell someone else how things are done?
Like Nickolati said, so long as noone is getting hurt, there is no reason to define love for someone.
Ballsack 5.0

i'd like to see a pic of ice's duck

Ballkicks: (+91 / -77)
Posts: 1301 (0.219)
Reg. Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dinner with Amphy and Kayte
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 10 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:45:33 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Does anyone have any sort of support statistics? What percentage are in favor, and what against?


Outside of the South and the Rocky Mountain states, I don't it has much support.

From CNN:

Quote:
Approving a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and even many supporters concede that they lack the 67 votes needed. Democratic critics accuse GOP leaders of cynically bringing up a measure that can't pass to play to their conservative base and put Democratic senators in an awkward political position.

"I find it really intolerable that it's coming up now," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, on "Late Edition." "Everyone knows that it doesn't have the votes to be placed before the American people. It's there only to create, I think, a major conflict."

Most Democrats in the Senate -- including the presidential ticket of Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards -- are against the amendment. But even some moderate Republicans plan to buck Bush on the issue.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/senate.marriage/index.html

Either way, this is a dreadful piece of legislation. Luckily, it seems to have little chance of success.
This reply was last edited on 07-12-04 08:51:05 PM by Ballsack 5.0.
EscalatorToHell

elusive and illustrious

Ballkicks: (+177 / -80)
Posts: 1361 (0.218)
Reg. Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cornfields, Ohio
Gender: Female
Reply 11 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:45:40 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

The conversation I just had with IB in IRC is a good example of the MAIN reason why I'm fighting this.

If this were to pass, it would open the door for more amendments limiting the rights of US citizens. The government could easily come up with an alternative for gays, instead of just crushing all hope of them having a union recognized by the state. Instead of giving people rights and limiting the stretch of the government's hand like all other amendments, it's doing the exact opposite.

Quote:

[21:24] * FlamingArrow has joined #intl
[21:24] * ChanServ sets mode: +oa FlamingArrow FlamingArrow
[21:25] <ib> hey phil, call your senator about the marriage amendment
[21:25] <EscalatorToHell> Fuck you Robert if you're making fun of it
[21:25] <EscalatorToHell> I think it's pretty serious
[21:25] <ib> i'm not
[21:26] <ib> it is, so when it gets passed it'll be a gateway to other shitty amendments
[21:26] <EscalatorToHell> Exactly.
Menion
INTL Premium Member
Regular

Man-Onions

Ballkicks: (+122 / -35)
Posts: 905 (0.147)
Reg. Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
Gender: Male
Reply 12 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:48:11 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
If this were to pass, it would open the door for more amendments limiting the rights of US citizens. The government could easily come up with an alternative for gays, instead of just crushing all hope of them having a union recognized by the state. Instead of giving people rights and limiting the stretch of the government's hand like all other amendments, it's doing the exact opposite.


I think most of the senators realize this. That's why it's generally stated that the bill is doomed.
Science Brad
INTL Premium Member
sigh

Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.

Ballkicks: (+288 / -77)
Posts: 1529 (0.233)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location: Everywhere
Gender: Male
Reply 13 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:49:28 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Agreed that this will never pass congress. Even then, the states still have to ratify it as well.

This is merely a ploy by the GOP to draw lines in the political sand so they can have fuel for demonizing democrats, who in general will vote against this absurd idea.

As for Tyr's comments, you are correct. The love between a man and a man is as different from the love between a man and a woman as the love between a man and a women is different from another man and another women. My granfather remembers a time when his parents were uncomfortable with the idea of him being near black families. Now in our more enlightened (cough) times, such ideas are seen as racist (and perhaps rightly so). So too your discomfort with homosexuals is unfounded on anything to do with reason and most likey the result of an "ick" factor. I only hope your children will grow up to be more tolerant than thou.

Quote:
How do we know what kind of harm it could potentially cause? Is it innocuous, or isn't it? That's what I don't know, and I'd rather stick with 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it'.


Yes, of course. There isn't any point in fixing something that isn't broke, but there is a point in doing maintanence and upgrades to it. Otherwise you better not service your car at all until it breaks, nor change your current computer at all ever. Indeed the computer industry should just stop making new things because what we have currently is not broke. omg yah rite fag lol
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science."
-Albert Einstein

"Man is but a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed."
-Blaise Pascal

An eye for an eye has left the world blind.
Mr Excitable
INTL Premium Member
My girlfriend is the Michelin Man

Ballkicks: (+514 / -60)
Posts: 3218 (0.505)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 14 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:50:11 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I cant believe people still argue over something as trivial as two men or two women getting married. One time Black people were not allowed to vote and considered sub-standard humans. So no matter what one day Gay people will all be on the same level as the rest of us.

And if the bill passes, we might possibly see a mass exodus out of the USA not see since the time of Moses and the Jews fleeing Egypt.
You can baptize a cat, you just need to use a burlap sack.

I want a sandwich named after me - Jon Stewart
Dante

cocks in my mouth

Ballkicks: (+661 / -97)
Posts: 4779 (0.81)
Reg. Date: May 2004
Location: N by NW
Gender: Male
Reply 15 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:50:59 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

This whole situation is completely disgusting. Living in Massachusetts, this has been quite the hot topic. I too have written an editorial in my school newspaper on this issue.

As it stands right now, the current system of law is preventing a certain minority from having the same rights as the general populace. Besides being unfair, this goes completely against the founding fathers' intentions when they wrote the constitution.

From the point of the law, these people have to have the right to marry, if we want to continue to uphold the ideals of the Bill of Rights.

If your defending this amendment from a religious standpoint, obviously you forgot that there is no place for any religion in the constitution. Remember the seperation of church and state?

If your looking at this from a social point of view, and you believe that this will protect children from having "two mommies or daddies", your wrong. What makes you think a gay or lesbian couple wouldn't just be adopting anyways. Gay marriage would only protect these children's assets and security, and insure that they would go into the care of the other loving parent in the case of a death, instead of a foster home.

This amendment would be a travesty, but luckily I think that there isn't enough bipartisan support to get it through. That is, unless these lame Democrats buckle once again to public pressure.

I don't think Bush really gives a shit about gay marriage, but the GOP has found a topic where they can split Kerry/Edwards' opinion with the average American, and they are not about to let this go.

To add to ETH's directory:
U.S. Capital Switchboard - 202-224-3121

Sentator's Email - senate.gov
Rep's Email - house.gov

Snail Mail - Office of Senator/Representative [name], U.S. Senate/House of Reps., Washington, DC 20510/20515

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
-Denis Diderot
This reply was last edited on 07-12-04 09:12:26 PM by Dante.
greek_marquis

Zippo would love to eat feces with me

Ballkicks: (+52 / -11)
Posts: 217 (0.037)
Reg. Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 16 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:51:28 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I've written the phone numbers now, and i'm in the middle of an email.

I'd fax them, but I don't have a fax machine.

I knew this sort of shit was going on, but to this extent? No. I can't believe that my rights and the rights of others are being patronized like this. I'm sick of being a fucking puppet in this government.

Fucking asshole bush. God. I'm so angry, it's unbelievable.
EscalatorToHell

elusive and illustrious

Ballkicks: (+177 / -80)
Posts: 1361 (0.218)
Reg. Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cornfields, Ohio
Gender: Female
Reply 17 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:52:01 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Menion:
Quote:
If this were to pass, it would open the door for more amendments limiting the rights of US citizens. The government could easily come up with an alternative for gays, instead of just crushing all hope of them having a union recognized by the state. Instead of giving people rights and limiting the stretch of the government's hand like all other amendments, it's doing the exact opposite.


I think most of the senators realize this. That's why it's generally stated that the bill is doomed.

Well I thought Bush was doomed in '00 but looks like that backfired too. That attitude is why people don't vote on election day, because they figure so-and-so has it in the bag.

I'm still calling and making sure the people representing me know what I think. Pardon me if it seems like I'm fighting for a battle that's already won. In my opinion, the fact that an amendment like this was FORMED is cause for concern.
Menion
INTL Premium Member
Regular

Man-Onions

Ballkicks: (+122 / -35)
Posts: 905 (0.147)
Reg. Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
Gender: Male
Reply 18 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:52:36 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
And if the bill passes, we might possibly see a mass exodus out of the USA not see since the time of Moses and the Jews fleeing Egypt.


I sure as hell know I'd suddenly become Canadian.


(Or perhaps some genre of Western European)
Nickolati
Moderator
...moved to Idaho?

the cumstain that is left on the wall 11 years after the party has ended

Ballkicks: (+611 / -61)
Posts: 4927 (0.813)
Reg. Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boise
Gender: Male
Reply 19 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:53:46 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Tyr:
Quoted from Nickolati:
It's not the government's job to get rid of things that we don't agree with.


Uh, yes it is. E.g. bigamy, rape, larson, etc.

You took that the wrong way. Crime is a crime, and homosexuality is no crime. Are you really that dense?

Quoted from Tyr:
Quoted from Nickolati:
It's their job to protect them as long as they are causing no harm.


How do we know what kind of harm it could potentially cause? Is it innocuous, or isn't it? That's what I don't know, and I'd rather stick with 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it'.


How does two people expressing love cause harm? What harm does it cause? If you don't like it, don't look at it. Don't limit the basic human rights of the innocent either.

Quoted from Tyr:
Quoted from Nickolati:
Love is love man.


That's rather subjectional, don't you think? I could take that out of context in a snap, but I'm not going to be foolish and pretend like the love that some cannibal serial rapist thinks he has is the same as a homosexual's. But the point still stands (somewhat).


All homosexuals aren't child molesters. Love isn't devious or sinister. Why would you even considering comparing them?


It's just another form of prejudice no matter how you look at it. Sugar coat it any way you want and do what you need to do to sleep at night.
"She had dyed red hair, a forest green dress, and a pair of kitchen knives. She was the last time I ever saw a rose."
Ballsack 5.0

i'd like to see a pic of ice's duck

Ballkicks: (+91 / -77)
Posts: 1301 (0.219)
Reg. Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dinner with Amphy and Kayte
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 20 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:55:38 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

As much as I think this is an asinine amendment, I have to respect Bush for his brazen pandering to his base. I mean, when was the last time the Democrats gave their liberal base something to really be happy about? All they seem to do is play defense, never offense.

I wish Democrats were as shameless as the GOP.
Nickolati
Moderator
...moved to Idaho?

the cumstain that is left on the wall 11 years after the party has ended

Ballkicks: (+611 / -61)
Posts: 4927 (0.813)
Reg. Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boise
Gender: Male
Reply 21 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:58:35 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from BB:
As much as I think this is an asinine amendment, I have to respect Bush for his brazen pandering to his base. I mean, when was the last time the Democrats gave their liberal base something to really be happy about? All they seem to do is play defense, never offense.

I wish Democrats were as shameless as the GOP.


Fucking Amen. If Democrats and people that lived paycheck to paycheck actually cared enough to voice their opinions, there would be no need to fight simple issues like this.
"She had dyed red hair, a forest green dress, and a pair of kitchen knives. She was the last time I ever saw a rose."
Tyr

I cybered with Kayte

Ballkicks: (+479 / -130)
Posts: 4815 (0.721)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Then and Now
Gender: Male
Reply 22 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:59:11 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
You took that the wrong way. Crime is a crime, and homosexuality is no crime. Are you really that dense?


You don't need to insult my intelligence. It's just something that doesn't sit right with me. And I certainly didn't say homosexuality was a crime, so climb on down off that high horse.

Quote:
How does two people expressing love cause harm? What harm does it cause? If you don't like it, don't look at it. Don't limit the basic human rights of the innocent either.


How much research has been done into what causes homosexuality, and what do we know for certain? How do we know what drives it mentally? What if it's just a sexual impulse, and nothing more? Can you honestly say that everyone who has ever professed to love someone has really (by psychological standards or some other disclaimer like that) loved someone? Who's to say they aren't confused? Who's to say that heterosexuals aren't confused? Divorce rates seem to say not everybody.

Quote:
It's just another form of prejudice no matter how you look at it. Sugar coat it any way you want and do what you need to do to sleep at night.


Jesus Christ, you really are getting wound up about it. I just try to state my points and you make it some sort of personal vindiction. It's not like we were supposed to voice our opinions or anything.
asthetik
I SHOULD READ THE HALL OF REJECTS MORE OFTEN!

making jabs at each other is what the internet is for you fucking idiots. oh, and for stealing things.

Ballkicks: (+333 / -161)
Posts: 3016 (0.46)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 23 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 08:59:49 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
How do we know what kind of harm it could potentially cause? Is it innocuous, or isn't it? That's what I don't know, and I'd rather stick with 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it'.


Massachusetts has been gay-friendly for a while now, Vermont for much longer. It has caused no problems here, and I see no reason why it would anywhere else.

Quote:
And if the bill passes, we might possibly see a mass exodus out of the USA not see since the time of Moses and the Jews fleeing Egypt.


Doubtful.

Very doubtful.

Most homosexuals are already denied this right, so I doubt they'd go through the trouble of relocating internationally to subvert it.
asthetik - year 04/05

the only difference between a caprice and a life-long passion is that the caprice lasts a little longer
Nickolati
Moderator
...moved to Idaho?

the cumstain that is left on the wall 11 years after the party has ended

Ballkicks: (+611 / -61)
Posts: 4927 (0.813)
Reg. Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boise
Gender: Male
Reply 24 of 66 (Originally posted on: 07-12-04 09:04:58 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Tyr:
Jesus Christ, you really are getting wound up about it. I just try to state my points and you make it some sort of personal vindiction. It's not like we were supposed to voice our opinions or anything.


First off, that wasn't a personal jab at you. It was a general statement in response to something you said. If you took offense though, you must have a guilty conscious.

Quoted from Tyr:
How much research has been done into what causes homosexuality, and what do we know for certain? How do we know what drives it mentally? What if it's just a sexual impulse, and nothing more? Can you honestly say that everyone who has ever professed to love someone has really (by psychological standards or some other disclaimer like that) loved someone? Who's to say they aren't confused? Who's to say that heterosexuals aren't confused? Divorce rates seem to say not everybody.


What causes homosexuality? Perhaps the same thing that makes you love women? Just because everyone doesn't feel the same doesn't make it a disease or something that needs to cured.
"She had dyed red hair, a forest green dress, and a pair of kitchen knives. She was the last time I ever saw a rose."
Quick Reply
Page: [ 1 2 3 ] Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
[ Thread Views: 4900 | Total Posts: 66 ]