The US has a serious problem. Anyone care to give me a list of governments / societies that have LEGISLATED about the difference between gay people and straight people to limit their rights?
C'mon. Play the game. Give me one (there's been a few).
Clue: the worst ****ing scum-sucking maggot-peckered murderers the planet has ever seen. The worst. I can understand exactly why Kirk feels this bad.
(Edit: I have to acknowledge before others do that anti-gay sex legislation has been a feature of many countries for years, not just the US but everywhere ... but most countries are tending to *remove* restrictions. I'll leave the post here because that's still the way I feel about the situation).
Remember, this is a constitutional amendment, which means it not only has to pass 2/3 of both House and Senate, but also 3/4 of the states. I don't think there's any chance that will happen.
In fact, the president has no legal role in constitutional amendments.
Does he not have to sign the Bill that passes the amendment at the Federal level? I am not an expert on American legislative procedure, but in Canada constitutional admendents still need Executive signature (although in Canada - as in most Parliamentary systems - this signature is effectively symbolic: "Royal Assent"). Is the President's signature not required in the U.S.?
Does he not have to sign the Bill that passes the amendment at the Federal level? I am not an expert on American legislative procedure, but in Canada constitutional admendents still need Executive signature (although in Canada - as in most Parliamentary systems - this signature is effectively symbolic: "Royal Assent"). Is the President's signature not required in the U.S.?
Nope. The two-faced, dividing, lying sack of sub-human feces can smirk his way through this, backing a Hate Amendment to the Constitution without ever having to have the courage to put his pen to paper.
Bush if such filth that if I were to step in him, I wouldn't scrape him off my shoes, I'd burn the shoes. The same goes for everyone ? my parents included ? who will be supporting him in the Fall.
oh yeah...regarding the substantive issue in this thread:
This proposed amendment is just pathetic election-year posturing by the President - he knows that he cannot get this through.
The scary thing about it, however, is that if he could do it right away, he would.
And while it is posturing, it is still fomenting hatred. Anyone who uses such hatred - and plays on the hatred of others -as a way to get elected deserves contempt.
Like Fellows, I have to say I was a bit surprised to see Kirkland's vehement response, given how well-reasoned most of his other posts have been (at least those I've read recently). But everyone has their "push buttons" that really set them off I guess, otherwise you're not human... I certainly am no saint in this regard.
Well, I'm not sure how I'd feel if someone called for an amendment against me and my type in our founding document, the essence of our country. It's hard to imagine how I'd feel, but I think I'd consider it war, and I think I'd be pretty damn pissed.
I say live and let live. That's what this country is all about after all.
You are exactly right! I could start a thread on the benefits of a secular society with provision for religious expression in private life but absent in political persuasion.
I have never understood the rigid religious rules and regulations of any religion. The theocracies in the middle east such as Saudi Arabia with strict rules for women etc. I mean are the men so afraid they may see a woman in lust? Sounds weak to me. In America are Christians so afraid of gay marriage?
The problem is that we do need to allow for a pluralistic open society over a control freak variant where by all actions are controlled by the so-called "morality police"
Just look at this example where by "live and let live" is thrown out the window:
Quote:
It is mostly women who curse and spit at Rania Atta when she walks through Gaza City's crowded streets without a
headscarf.
She would not dare to step out in jeans as she might have done a couple of years ago.
The steady rise in the death toll and decline of the economy after over three years of fighting with Israel have pushed a growing number of
Palestinians to turn towards religion and against those who flout conservative Islamic standards.
"When I go to the market, women and men curse me for not covering my hair. Some women grab me by the arm and say 'Aren't you
ashamed of yourself?' Others spit at me," said 25-year-old Atta, who works for a hospital.
"They make me feel like I'm different, like I came from outer space. I feel besieged," said the mother of two, who has applied for a Canadian
I knew they wouldn't answer my question. I'm not here to step on anybody's religious beliefs. However I think this is based more on a feeling ( perhaps from their childhood ) than religious text.
I'm in no way religious and consider myself pretty liberal, but allow me to play the devil's advocat for a minute.
Why is there an institution like 'marriage' in the first place? I would say to create an (economical) stable environment to have and raise children. So by definition, this would exclude gays.
Also, marriage includes certain obligations, and certain right, including the right to adopt children. I rmmbr, here in Belgium (one of the first countries to made civil unions possible between homosexuals) that was exactly the reason why gay marriages weren't allowed. (They are allowed now, but homosexual couples still cannot adopt children, i believe).
However, nobody seems to make those arguments, almost everybody says: 'oh, we love gays, and they can have all equal rights BUT marriage is a religious institution, our religion says no can do, so it's no can do. This, to me, is utterly mmm...incomprehensible. That's like banning pre-marital sex because that is also what is writting in your bibles.
Somehow i think if we would just delete the word 'marriage' from the discussion, and simply replace it with anything else, nobody would have a problem. Of course that is not gonna happen, but it's too bad that a simple semnatics thing has to unveil the religious extremism that some still propagade.
What is mayb even worse, is that this extremism is also fake. It is extremism Ã* la carte. Of course this has always been the big contradiction of religion: people pick out those issues that suite them, and leave out the rest. Gays are a bit strange and i don't really know them: the bible says they cannot get married, so we'll limit their civil rights.
But hey, life long commitment is somewhat of a drag, so divorce should of course be possible, no matter what the bible says about marriage.
Well, I'm not sure how I'd feel if someone called for an amendment against me and my type in our founding document, the essence of our country. It's hard to imagine how I'd feel, but I think I'd consider it war, and I think I'd be pretty damn pissed.
Actually I understand the anger and rage of Kirkland. I too would be pissed.
Studio896, you were out walking in the barnyard and you stepped on it...
One of the main reasons religious fanatics, err, the christian right and history-ignorant Americans harp on the "United States was meant to be Christian" is the following:
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge (of Allegiance) in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ] In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
The founding fathers were wise enough to know that superstition, err, religion must NOT be the guiding force of the country's government. Of course this has been bent backwards and forwards throughout American history.
Talking about someone who probably slept through every history class he's ever been in; our President. Now he wants to amend the Constitution to "protect" us straight people. What a pathetic and dangerous shmoe he is. As for all those supposedly "intelligent" people in his administration...sheeesh.
I poke a lot of fun at Christian believers, however, I will say people like Fellowship have my respect. Religion and Corporate greed are the two most dangerous factors on this world now.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Apart from faggits.
(I know that this is the Declaration and not the Constitution but I got confused and George Bush now indisputably deserves cheap shots.)
What a ****ing buffoon this vegetable we have as a president is. I try not to hate the guy, but he is unbearable.
If he really pushes this thing he is putting his foot in the bear trap. We can only hope someone rides up in November and finishes him off, for his own good.
I heard David Cross say that Bush is the worst president ever. I scoffed at first, but the way this guy is heading... jeez.
What a ****ing buffoon this vegetable we have as a president is. I try not to hate the guy, but he is unbearable.
If he really pushes this thing he is putting his foot in the bear trap. We can only hope someone rides up in November and finishes him off, for his own good.
I heard David Cross say that Bush is the worst president ever. I scoffed at first, but the way this guy is heading... jeez.
WOW!
Like I've always said Bush is bad for democrats, bad for republicans, bad for americans, bad for us all. It's nice to agree with you groverat!
groverat, like I stated in another post, I've been a Republican most of my life. We are at a critical juncture in this country.
This knucklehead and his "advisors" have to go!
I'm no fan of John Kerry, but dammit, if he represents the Dems I will vote for him the devil be damned...
You know I too "was" a Republican my entire life. I grew up with teachers from 4th grade onward trying to indoctrinate me to the democratic party. I sort of despised this and as I became older formed some fiscal conservative beliefs. I will say however that I am not a social conservative and the pandering by Bush and other "republicans" to the religious right has put a bad taste in my mouth. So much so that I will vote for Kerry even if I do not like everything about the guy.
The Republican party is going to dig itself a grave with the younger generations being alienated.
You know I too "was" a Republican my entire life. I grew up with teachers from 4th grade onward trying to indoctrinate me to the democratic party. I sort of despised this and as I became older formed some fiscal conservative beliefs. I will say however that I am not a social conservative and the pandering by Bush and other "republicans" to the religious right has put a bad taste in my mouth. So much so that I will vote for Kerry even if I do not like everything about the guy.
The Republican party is going to dig itself a grave with the younger generations being alienated.
Fellows
I'm afraid the country took a large wrong turn when this guy got into office. I'm not trying to say I told you so but, this is what I've been trying to convey. Not a blind hate of the man ( as in just left vs. right ) but real reasons to dislike him. I knew what he was capable of.
I'm not clairvoyant or a rocket scientist. All it takes is a little study of the man.
As a president I'm afraid he's a disaster waiting to happen.
You think John Kerry is going to do anything? He was for gay marriage two years ago but then decided to run for president and switched his stance. John Kerry is a another typical do-nothing Democrat--a conservative. He might boot Bush out of office, but the status-quo will be maintained. There will not be federally recognized gay marriage and the gay rights movement will stagnate.
Comments
There's almost no chance it's going to happen.
But we have our divide and conquer issue on the table don't we.
Awww that Bush... he's such a Uniter aint he.
C'mon. Play the game. Give me one (there's been a few).
Clue: the worst ****ing scum-sucking maggot-peckered murderers the planet has ever seen. The worst. I can understand exactly why Kirk feels this bad.
(Edit: I have to acknowledge before others do that anti-gay sex legislation has been a feature of many countries for years, not just the US but everywhere ... but most countries are tending to *remove* restrictions. I'll leave the post here because that's still the way I feel about the situation).
Originally posted by BRussell
Remember, this is a constitutional amendment, which means it not only has to pass 2/3 of both House and Senate, but also 3/4 of the states. I don't think there's any chance that will happen.
In fact, the president has no legal role in constitutional amendments.
Does he not have to sign the Bill that passes the amendment at the Federal level? I am not an expert on American legislative procedure, but in Canada constitutional admendents still need Executive signature (although in Canada - as in most Parliamentary systems - this signature is effectively symbolic: "Royal Assent"). Is the President's signature not required in the U.S.?
Originally posted by Chinney
Does he not have to sign the Bill that passes the amendment at the Federal level? I am not an expert on American legislative procedure, but in Canada constitutional admendents still need Executive signature (although in Canada - as in most Parliamentary systems - this signature is effectively symbolic: "Royal Assent"). Is the President's signature not required in the U.S.?
Nope. The two-faced, dividing, lying sack of sub-human feces can smirk his way through this, backing a Hate Amendment to the Constitution without ever having to have the courage to put his pen to paper.
Bush if such filth that if I were to step in him, I wouldn't scrape him off my shoes, I'd burn the shoes. The same goes for everyone ? my parents included ? who will be supporting him in the Fall.
Kirk
This proposed amendment is just pathetic election-year posturing by the President - he knows that he cannot get this through.
The scary thing about it, however, is that if he could do it right away, he would.
And while it is posturing, it is still fomenting hatred. Anyone who uses such hatred - and plays on the hatred of others -as a way to get elected deserves contempt.
Interesting reading:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index....64340071973047
Originally posted by Moogs
Like Fellows, I have to say I was a bit surprised to see Kirkland's vehement response, given how well-reasoned most of his other posts have been (at least those I've read recently). But everyone has their "push buttons" that really set them off I guess, otherwise you're not human... I certainly am no saint in this regard.
Well, I'm not sure how I'd feel if someone called for an amendment against me and my type in our founding document, the essence of our country. It's hard to imagine how I'd feel, but I think I'd consider it war, and I think I'd be pretty damn pissed.
Originally posted by jimmac
I say live and let live. That's what this country is all about after all.
You are exactly right! I could start a thread on the benefits of a secular society with provision for religious expression in private life but absent in political persuasion.
I have never understood the rigid religious rules and regulations of any religion. The theocracies in the middle east such as Saudi Arabia with strict rules for women etc. I mean are the men so afraid they may see a woman in lust? Sounds weak to me. In America are Christians so afraid of gay marriage?
The problem is that we do need to allow for a pluralistic open society over a control freak variant where by all actions are controlled by the so-called "morality police"
Just look at this example where by "live and let live" is thrown out the window:
It is mostly women who curse and spit at Rania Atta when she walks through Gaza City's crowded streets without a
headscarf.
She would not dare to step out in jeans as she might have done a couple of years ago.
The steady rise in the death toll and decline of the economy after over three years of fighting with Israel have pushed a growing number of
Palestinians to turn towards religion and against those who flout conservative Islamic standards.
"When I go to the market, women and men curse me for not covering my hair. Some women grab me by the arm and say 'Aren't you
ashamed of yourself?' Others spit at me," said 25-year-old Atta, who works for a hospital.
"They make me feel like I'm different, like I came from outer space. I feel besieged," said the mother of two, who has applied for a Canadian
visa to try to escape what she calls a prison.
Taken from This Link
This is the part that gets my attention:
Quote:
"They make me feel like I'm different, like I came from outer space. I feel besieged," said the mother of two, who has applied for a Canadian
visa to try to escape what she calls a prison.
It is a shame that women in the middle east should be treated this way or gay people in the United States.
Fellowship
Why is there an institution like 'marriage' in the first place? I would say to create an (economical) stable environment to have and raise children. So by definition, this would exclude gays.
Also, marriage includes certain obligations, and certain right, including the right to adopt children. I rmmbr, here in Belgium (one of the first countries to made civil unions possible between homosexuals) that was exactly the reason why gay marriages weren't allowed. (They are allowed now, but homosexual couples still cannot adopt children, i believe).
However, nobody seems to make those arguments, almost everybody says: 'oh, we love gays, and they can have all equal rights BUT marriage is a religious institution, our religion says no can do, so it's no can do. This, to me, is utterly mmm...incomprehensible. That's like banning pre-marital sex because that is also what is writting in your bibles.
Somehow i think if we would just delete the word 'marriage' from the discussion, and simply replace it with anything else, nobody would have a problem. Of course that is not gonna happen, but it's too bad that a simple semnatics thing has to unveil the religious extremism that some still propagade.
What is mayb even worse, is that this extremism is also fake. It is extremism Ã* la carte. Of course this has always been the big contradiction of religion: people pick out those issues that suite them, and leave out the rest. Gays are a bit strange and i don't really know them: the bible says they cannot get married, so we'll limit their civil rights.
But hey, life long commitment is somewhat of a drag, so divorce should of course be possible, no matter what the bible says about marriage.
Hypocrisy? U betcha!
Originally posted by BRussell
Well, I'm not sure how I'd feel if someone called for an amendment against me and my type in our founding document, the essence of our country. It's hard to imagine how I'd feel, but I think I'd consider it war, and I think I'd be pretty damn pissed.
Actually I understand the anger and rage of Kirkland. I too would be pissed.
Fellows
One of the main reasons religious fanatics, err, the christian right and history-ignorant Americans harp on the "United States was meant to be Christian" is the following:
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge (of Allegiance) in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ] In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
The founding fathers were wise enough to know that superstition, err, religion must NOT be the guiding force of the country's government. Of course this has been bent backwards and forwards throughout American history.
Talking about someone who probably slept through every history class he's ever been in; our President. Now he wants to amend the Constitution to "protect" us straight people. What a pathetic and dangerous shmoe he is. As for all those supposedly "intelligent" people in his administration...sheeesh.
I poke a lot of fun at Christian believers, however, I will say people like Fellowship have my respect. Religion and Corporate greed are the two most dangerous factors on this world now.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Apart from faggits.
(I know that this is the Declaration and not the Constitution but I got confused and George Bush now indisputably deserves cheap shots.)
What a ****ing buffoon this vegetable we have as a president is. I try not to hate the guy, but he is unbearable.
If he really pushes this thing he is putting his foot in the bear trap. We can only hope someone rides up in November and finishes him off, for his own good.
I heard David Cross say that Bush is the worst president ever. I scoffed at first, but the way this guy is heading... jeez.
This knucklehead and his "advisors" have to go!
I'm no fan of John Kerry, but dammit, if he represents the Dems I will vote for him the devil be damned...
Originally posted by groverat
So much for state's rights, eh?
What a ****ing buffoon this vegetable we have as a president is. I try not to hate the guy, but he is unbearable.
If he really pushes this thing he is putting his foot in the bear trap. We can only hope someone rides up in November and finishes him off, for his own good.
I heard David Cross say that Bush is the worst president ever. I scoffed at first, but the way this guy is heading... jeez.
WOW!
Like I've always said Bush is bad for democrats, bad for republicans, bad for americans, bad for us all. It's nice to agree with you groverat!
Originally posted by hardhead
groverat, like I stated in another post, I've been a Republican most of my life. We are at a critical juncture in this country.
This knucklehead and his "advisors" have to go!
I'm no fan of John Kerry, but dammit, if he represents the Dems I will vote for him the devil be damned...
You know I too "was" a Republican my entire life. I grew up with teachers from 4th grade onward trying to indoctrinate me to the democratic party. I sort of despised this and as I became older formed some fiscal conservative beliefs. I will say however that I am not a social conservative and the pandering by Bush and other "republicans" to the religious right has put a bad taste in my mouth. So much so that I will vote for Kerry even if I do not like everything about the guy.
The Republican party is going to dig itself a grave with the younger generations being alienated.
Fellows
Originally posted by Fellowship
The Republican party is going to dig itself a grave with the younger generations being alienated.
You have never heard of the Young Conservatives of Texas. ;-)
Originally posted by Fellowship
You know I too "was" a Republican my entire life. I grew up with teachers from 4th grade onward trying to indoctrinate me to the democratic party. I sort of despised this and as I became older formed some fiscal conservative beliefs. I will say however that I am not a social conservative and the pandering by Bush and other "republicans" to the religious right has put a bad taste in my mouth. So much so that I will vote for Kerry even if I do not like everything about the guy.
The Republican party is going to dig itself a grave with the younger generations being alienated.
Fellows
I'm afraid the country took a large wrong turn when this guy got into office. I'm not trying to say I told you so but, this is what I've been trying to convey. Not a blind hate of the man ( as in just left vs. right ) but real reasons to dislike him. I knew what he was capable of.
I'm not clairvoyant or a rocket scientist. All it takes is a little study of the man.
As a president I'm afraid he's a disaster waiting to happen.
Ralph Nader is the only one who is progressive.
www.votenader.org