Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals - Working On A Proposed New Law

[Johnny Mayberry]

Religion is very american. Why can't you see that God was the central point in this whole nation. If God and religion have no place in this government then you would have no rights whatsoever. It was the founding father's belief in God that made them feel the way they do. You know, God given/Unalienable rights?

Paul

LOL!

It was their love of freedom that led them away from a religion-based government. If they had wanted theocracy, they were smart enough to have said so. They clearly did not believe that churches should control the government, or the people for that matter.
Plus, we have grown up in the past 200+ years, and we have become more free over time, as bigotry and hatred have left our laws, if not our lives.

 

[Pookie]

Why can't marriage be for man and woman only. Why do we have to devalue the judeo-christian tradition by allowing homosexuals to marry? Why can't they simply settle for partnership? Marriage will and always be between man and woman.

He is not telling you to not be gay he is just telling you that marriage is between man and woman under God's sanctitiy. What is so wrong with that?

Paul

Most people who oppose the legalization of gay marriages do so because they see it as posing a serious threat to the institution of marriage itself. What's interesting is how close their arguments are to the ones which were used to oppose interracial marriages years ago, and to support laws against interracial marriages.

The same questionable arguments against interracial marriages (alleged harm to children, the unnaturalness of the marriages, and the importance of tradition) were wrong before when it masked racial prejudice. Those arguments are just as wrong now.

As for God's sanctity of marriage, most churches do not accept divorce and remarriage but under very strict situations. Yet, our government legally allows divorce and remarriage in many situations that the church doesn't sanction. To not allow gays and lesbians to be married because it isn't recognized by the church, or allegedly not sanctioned by God, is hypocritical at best.

In spite of the potential values of marriage (bringing people emotional stability, financial security, longer lives, etc), opposition to gay marriage is a lot stronger than opposition to heterosexual divorce. Again, hypocritical at best.

Marriage is not exclusive to the church either. Many civil marriages occur every day, with no religious ceremony or sanctioning. But in the case of gay marriages, the argument is that it isn't sanctioned by God so it shouldn't be legal. Can you be any more hypocritical?

 

[Queersetti]

I personnally think he is a great president. His social issues are right on and no I am not saying this to piss people off.

Why can't marriage be for man and woman only. Why do we have to devalue the judeo-christian tradition by allowing homosexuals to marry? Why can't they simply settle for partnership? Marriage will and always be between man and woman.

He is not telling you to not be gay he is just telling you that marriage is between man and woman under God's sanctitiy. What is so wrong with that?

People need to look at the issue for what it is not because they think he stole the election, etc...

I am a Republican and damn proud of it. I am conservative in most every single way. I tote guns, I love Jesus, and I like to keep my money and not give it to people who will squander it away.

Paul

I can assure you that I would be strongly opposed to Bush and his far right agenda even if he had been legitimately elected.

I would like to ask you why I, as a gay man, should subsidize with my tax dollars, an institution which I am not entitled to legally enter into myself.

In the face of a 50% divorce rate, and sky high incidence of teenage pregnancy, single parent households, and spousal abuse, I would love to know how any heterosexual can claim that marriage would be in some way devalued by allowing gays and lesbians to wed.

Let's face it, you people have fucked it up severely already.

 

[69forever]

Ahhh...Pookie and Queerseti...well said, well said.

 

[marshallnoise]

Re: re: Marshallnoise

Yeah, and the Enron executives, stock brokers, bankers and
tv evangelists who have raped untold millions are all unapologetic
fucking Republicans too. Give your money away? You've done it
for the cause and by doing so sold your childrens financial future
down the drain. As long as you hypocritical, bigoted people run
things, they're going to be fucked up beyond all repair for the
foreseeable future. Thanks for nothing.

Ohh...I tote guns, fish and hang with some good ole boys too.

Like I said before...it's REALLY got nothing to do with religion.
It's about denying benefits to alternative loving couples. $$$$.

Unfortunatly, it isn't just about denying them benefits. It is about them walking all over our morals. Snubbing marriage and making it just a term doesn't help. It shouldn't be allowed.

BTW, thanks for calling be a bigot.

Paul

 

[marshallnoise]

I can assure you that I would be strongly opposed to Bush and his far right agenda even if he had been legitimately elected.

I would like to ask you why I, as a gay man, should subsidize with my tax dollars, an institution which I am not entitled to legally enter into myself.

In the face of a 50% divorce rate, and sky high incidence of teenage pregnancy, single parent households, and spousal abuse, I would love to know how any heterosexual can claim that marriage would be in some way devalued by allowing gays and lesbians to wed.

Let's face it, you people have fucked it up severely already.

You aren't subsidising anything. You can be in a relationship with anyone you want. Fine. But marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want a legal contract that is different than marriage then call your lawyer. You can do it that way too you know. That way you can not mess with the man and woman institiution. That is all I ask and most republicans do too.

If there was anything that should be changed it is that gays and lesbians should be allowed to get "household" benefits. For example: tax credits when appropriate, insurance, and "family status" in emergency situations. Beyond that, you would be getting rights that regular people wouldn't get. That is what is wrong. You can draft up a legal contract and try to push it though congress if you want and not alienate us people who belive marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think that is reasonable enough. Beyond that, I can't talk to you because you are anti anything conservative for the sake of being that way.

Paul

 

[Pookie]

You aren't subsidising anything. You can be in a relationship with anyone you want. Fine. But marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want a legal contract that is different than marriage then call your lawyer. You can do it that way too you know. That way you can not mess with the man and woman institiution. That is all I ask and most republicans do too.

If there was anything that should be changed it is that gays and lesbians should be allowed to get "household" benefits. For example: tax credits when appropriate, insurance, and "family status" in emergency situations. Beyond that, you would be getting rights that regular people wouldn't get. That is what is wrong. You can draft up a legal contract and try to push it though congress if you want and not alienate us people who belive marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think that is reasonable enough. Beyond that, I can't talk to you because you are anti anything conservative for the sake of being that way.

Paul

You are a bigot.

Reply to my prior post?

 

[Pookie]

... Beyond that, you would be getting rights that regular people wouldn't get. That is what is wrong. ...

And what rights would gays and lesbians be getting that "regular" people wouldn't get?

 

[marshallnoise]

Most people who oppose the legalization of gay marriages do so because they see it as posing a serious threat to the institution of marriage itself. What's interesting is how close their arguments are to the ones which were used to oppose interracial marriages years ago, and to support laws against interracial marriages.

The same questionable arguments against interracial marriages (alleged harm to children, the unnaturalness of the marriages, and the importance of tradition) were wrong before when it masked racial prejudice. Those arguments are just as wrong now.

As for God's sanctity of marriage, most churches do not accept divorce and remarriage but under very strict situations. Yet, our government legally allows divorce and remarriage in many situations that the church doesn't sanction. To not allow gays and lesbians to be married because it isn't recognized by the church, or allegedly not sanctioned by God, is hypocritical at best.

In spite of the potential values of marriage (bringing people emotional stability, financial security, longer lives, etc), opposition to gay marriage is a lot stronger than opposition to heterosexual divorce. Again, hypocritical at best.

Marriage is not exclusive to the church either. Many civil marriages occur every day, with no religious ceremony or sanctioning. But in the case of gay marriages, the argument is that it isn't sanctioned by God so it shouldn't be legal. Can you be any more hypocritical?

Wheather you like to admit it or not, it is harder for a mixed child to make it in this world. Harder on him/her thoughout their life, especially childhood.

But that is not the issue and it is not exactly fair to compare the two. They are different in every way except name of the cause. You can't just play the race card and expect to make sense. The race card and in this case "discrimination" card are just red herrings. They are both non issues in my book.

You see, the issue is not the government side. In fact, I would bet that most everyone would not care what the government sanctioned as long as it treated no one different and "special" because they are homosexual. The issue is that these people want to be "married" in a church under God. And that is the flaw. The government should not hand out "Marriage Certificates", they should rename them "Social Contracts." That would probably cure the problem all togeather. But I don't want homosexuals being "Married". I just don't. It is bad enough that we have to sin against God when we get married and find out it doesn't work and have to get a divorce.

It is another thing entirely to sin despite of God and flaunt in front of his face.

Paul

 

[Pookie]

Wheather you like to admit it or not, it is harder for a mixed child to make it in this world. Harder on him/her thoughout their life, especially childhood.

But that is not the issue and it is not exactly fair to compare the two. They are different in every way except name of the cause. You can't just play the race card and expect to make sense. The race card and in this case "discrimination" card are just red herrings. They are both non issues in my book.

Oh it's a great comparison. The argument against interracial marriages was that God didn't intend the races to mix. Now the argument is that you are against gay marriages because God didn't intend the same sex to mix. You can put your blinders on all you want in the name of religion, but discrimination is just as wrong, even when done in the name of God.

You see, the issue is not the government side. In fact, I would bet that most everyone would not care what the government sanctioned as long as it treated no one different and "special" because they are homosexual. The issue is that these people want to be "married" in a church under God. And that is the flaw. The government should not hand out "Marriage Certificates", they should rename them "Social Contracts." That would probably cure the problem all togeather.

The Government already "hands out" marriage certificates. And many marriages are civil ceremonies, involving no church or religious ceremony. Those individuals are just as married as anyone married in a church.

You say "these people want to be 'married' in a church under God". No. "These people" just want the right to be married like any other US citizen. I'm not interested in forcing churches to do ANYTHING they don't want to do. The government recognizes civil marriages performed by Judges, Notory Publics, etc.. It is discrimination not to recognize and allow all civil marriages.

But I don't want homosexuals being "Married". I just don't. It is bad enough that we have to sin against God when we get married and find out it doesn't work and have to get a divorce.

It is another thing entirely to sin despite of God and flaunt in front of his face.

Paul

The intensity of your bigotry and ignorance is showing again.

 

[Queersetti]

You aren't subsidising anything. You can be in a relationship with anyone you want. Fine. But marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want a legal contract that is different than marriage then call your lawyer. You can do it that way too you know. That way you can not mess with the man and woman institiution. That is all I ask and most republicans do too.

If there was anything that should be changed it is that gays and lesbians should be allowed to get "household" benefits. For example: tax credits when appropriate, insurance, and "family status" in emergency situations. Beyond that, you would be getting rights that regular people wouldn't get. That is what is wrong. You can draft up a legal contract and try to push it though congress if you want and not alienate us people who belive marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think that is reasonable enough. Beyond that, I can't talk to you because you are anti anything conservative for the sake of being that way.

Paul

Why is it so hard for many conservatives to accept that people might disagree with them because they hold different principles or goals?

Of course I subsidize marriage, since it entails tax benefits I am not allowed to avail of myself.

Gay couples can't get tax benefits, visitation rihts, inheritance rights, etc. because legally, that is marriage.

How are we asking for special rights by asserting that we want to be treated the same as everyone else?

 

[Queersetti]

Beyond that, you would be getting rights that regular people wouldn't get. Paul

"Regular people"?


Bigot.

 

[69forever]

the judeo/christian myth...

In spite of my earlier rants about King George and the sheer
arrogence and hypocracy of these "Christian" bigots, I'll calmly
try to explain to Marshallnoise some myths of the judeo/christian
institution. Although I'll probably get further pounding my head against the wall...here goes.

Your religion is not the definitive word of God. Period. It is the
result of the church/government taking control over our lives.

I am a VERY spiritual person, albeit not religous. Getting to this
understanding, and acceptance of spirituality has entailed untold
years of research and unlearning history and religion, as I was
taught. Finding documents the church and state have tried to
burn, so that they could re-write history, is not an easy task.

Christ, Muhamad, Buddha...all were sons of "God". Spiritual
leaders who stuck around to try to show the rest of us the path
to freedom. For that the institutions of religion/government had
them killed to silence them.

Where was Jesus for all those missing years in your bible? He
traveled to India to learn of the teachings of Buddha. The early
christian church was a much different institution than portrayed
in "history".

The Nag Hamaldi scrolls revealed the true teachings of Jesus.
Reincarnation. Discovered in a cave in Egypt in 1947, hidden
there to keep them from being burned, they portray the teachings
of Jesus and the early christian faith much different from the
"official" version.

Jesus taught, as did the rest of the enlightened ones, that the
path to spiritual freedom lies within the power of yourself and
how you live your life. Hense the threat to the control that the
established religious leaders had over the people.

The true spiritual ideal has been perverted to maintain that
control. Denying gays and lesbians their right to equal treat-
ment is just one more of a veeery long list of crimes against
humanity. Like it or not...it's the truth.

 

[marshallnoise]

Fuck all of you. You are so ignorant to anything that isn't what you think. You wil never get anywhere in this world disrespecting people who are NORMAL. Wheather you like it or not, you are not NORMAL. Facts are facts. Deal with it. You tow the line that is hardest just because you want to be different.

I am not a fucking bigot. It is such a cop out to say that. And none of you have to talk to me like I am an idiot. My opinion is valid. Just because you are in the majority here on Lit doesn't make you the majority outside this leftist site.

And I like Lit. It is a great resource and fun place but all of your politics suck. I said before that I want homos to have similar rights if not all but stay away from the institution of Marriage!!! Is that so fucking hard to understand with out saying that I am a bigot?

Paul

 

[69forever]

Now, now...Marshallnoise

" I want HOMOS to have similar rights if not all..." ?

If that isn't bigoted...nothing is. Struck a chord, did I?

Your opinion (like everyone's) is your opinion...that doesn't
say that it is valid. Valid means true. Opinions are like assholes,
everyone has one.

We don't want similar rights. We want equal rights. What's so
leftist about that?
Sounds pretty fuckin democratic to me.

It's funny how all the spiritual teachings of doing unto others as
you would have done to you doesn't apply to us.

Good Sunday morning to you...peace be with you.

 

[Queersetti]

Fuck all of you. You are so ignorant to anything that isn't what you think. You wil never get anywhere in this world disrespecting people who are NORMAL. Wheather you like it or not, you are not NORMAL. Facts are facts. Deal with it. You tow the line that is hardest just because you want to be different.

I am not a fucking bigot. It is such a cop out to say that. And none of you have to talk to me like I am an idiot. My opinion is valid. Just because you are in the majority here on Lit doesn't make you the majority outside this leftist site.

And I like Lit. It is a great resource and fun place but all of your politics suck. I said before that I want homos to have similar rights if not all but stay away from the institution of Marriage!!! Is that so fucking hard to understand with out saying that I am a bigot?

Paul

It takes an awful lot of hubris for you to think you have a greater insight into these issues than those of us who live with them every day of our lives.

It doesn't matter if you want us to have our rights or not. It's simply not up to you. They are our rights and are not subject to revision by you, George Bush, or anyone else. We have no interest in "similar rights" the Constitution of the United States guarantees all citizens equal rights. You may believe that an abiding faith in the U.S. Constitution mays us leftists, but in stating so, you only reveal the extent to which your bigotry colors your reasoning.

 

[marshallnoise]

Here come the ohh poor me arguements. "I have to live in this way and it is such a horrible thing for me to have do deal with it because I don't have the same rights as heteros." Fucking grow up and realize that you make your own life harder, not me. By allowing you ruin my hetero religious ceremonies you would in effect be fucking with my rights. Can't you see that? You are different because you are gay. That is fact. Your actions make you different, are you that stupid that you can't see that?

There is nothing bigoted about coming to the conclusion that you are different. There is a social cost that should be paid for your decision to be gay. Most people aren't gay and you, the minority by far, are gay. Do you really think that you are going to be treated the same? Fundamentally yes you should, realistically you won't. Only when there are about 33% gays in this country, you will then have a voice strong enough to change things for you. Until then, you are merely someone who chooses to suffer for his decisions.

Am I a bigot because I don't want gay public schools that are limited for only gays? Am I bigoted because I want teachers to have to actually work for their job not just show up? Am I bigoted because I want criminals punnished severely for the crimes they have committed? I don't think so, if you disagree then you don't want to be held accountable for your actions.

By all of you pushing that "you" deserve things that 95% or more of the country doesn't get just makes you an invader. It is so unrealistic for you to think that your very simple and small minority will be able to change things to make your way of life seem normal. Wheather you like it or not, you aren't. I have no problem with you being "different", even if you don't think you are different, but you bring on pain on your own accord. I feel sorry for people who pierce things that shouldn't be, I feel sorry for younger people like myself who get tatoos. All they do is push themselves away from society. You are doing the same thing.

Paul

Now please label me a bigot. Pleeeeeeeeese.

 

[SweetCherry]

So different is a reason to be treated different? Hmm, so does that mean that because I'm also legally blind I should be less of a person? A disability is different. A race is different. A religion is different. A look is different. Size is different.

"All men are created equal." Ring any bells? "Seperation of church and state." How about that one? If we were meant to have ALL laws based on the bible, adultary would be a punishable offence. Stoning would be the method of execution for death row inmates. Give it a rest. Face it, this country is denying its citizens something that they have every right to. Bush has no business being in office when all he's trying to do is use the office for his own personal agendas, like pushing religious laws thru as legal ones., and gettign revenge on Sadaam since his daddy fucked up back in 1991.

If I want to marry my girl, that should be MY right as a citizen of this "free country". I guess I'm a second class citizen after all.

 

[Pookie]

Fuck all of you. You are so ignorant to anything that isn't what you think. You wil never get anywhere in this world disrespecting people who are NORMAL. Wheather you like it or not, you are not NORMAL. Facts are facts. Deal with it. You tow the line that is hardest just because you want to be different.

I am not a fucking bigot. It is such a cop out to say that. And none of you have to talk to me like I am an idiot. My opinion is valid. Just because you are in the majority here on Lit doesn't make you the majority outside this leftist site.

And I like Lit. It is a great resource and fun place but all of your politics suck. I said before that I want homos to have similar rights if not all but stay away from the institution of Marriage!!! Is that so fucking hard to understand with out saying that I am a bigot?

Paul

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


Yeah ... you're a bigot alright. Read your own posts.

 

[69forever]

Ahhh...my dear Pookie...so true.

Like I said, opinions are like assholes, everyones got one........
some are just bigger than others.

I'd get further banging my head against the wall than trying to
reason with an unreasonable man. Fuck you Marshallnoise and
all of your ignorant, biased beliefs.

 

[Pookie]

Poll: Legalize Same-Sex Marriage?

NEW YORK, July 30, 2003

(CBS) Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Texas law banning sodomy, more Americans object to legal marriage for homosexuals than support it.

In the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, 55 percent would oppose a law allowing homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights as other married couples, while 40 percent would favor such a law.

GAY MARRIAGE
Favor
40%
Oppose
55%

Republicans hold particularly strong views against gay marriage: 71 percent of them oppose it, and 27 percent favor it. Democrats and Independents are more evenly divided; 45 percent of Democrats support it, as do 45 percent of Independents.

Younger people are much more likely than older Americans to support gay marriage. Sixty-one percent of 18- to 29-year-olds favor it; that drops to just 18 percent among people 65 and older.

Opposition to gay marriage is strong among conservatives (71 percent oppose it), blacks (63 percent) and Protestants (64 percent). Catholics also oppose it, though by a smaller margin than the entire population; 44 percent favor it and 50 percent oppose it.

There are no real differences between men and women on this issue.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 3,092 adults interviewed by telephone July 13-27, 2003. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus two percentage points for results based on the entire sample.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/opinion/polls/main565918.shtml

 

[Pookie]

US poll shows increased support for gay marriage

David Ryan Alexander, Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network

Monday 28 July, 2003 12:16

A new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows overall increased support in the US for gay marriage, compared with a similar study released in 1996.

In the survey, 38 percent of respondents said they supported gay marriage, up from 27 percent in 1996. The poll also showed a decline in opposition to gay marriage, from 65 percent of respondents who opposed same-sex marriage rights in 1996, to a current 53 percent.

"The Gallup Poll released in May showed the same trend," said David Smith, communications director for the Human Rights Campaign. "The reason for that is more families are coming out and identifying themselves, and America is able to see gay families. The census shows gay families are living in every corner of every county in this country, and that's having a profound effect on public opinion."

The Pew report, which focused on the role of religion in politics, found that white mainline Protestants and white Roman Catholics became significantly more accepting of gay marriage.

"But notably," the report stated, "the shift in favor of gay marriage is seen in nearly every segment of society with two significant exceptions -- white evangelical Protestants and African-Americans. While a higher percentage of white evangelicals (83 percent) than blacks (64 percent) oppose legalizing gay marriages, neither group has changed its views significantly since 1996."

The survey was conducted nationwide of 2,002 adults from June 24 to July 8. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

A separate USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll released on June 30 also showed similar results, with 39 percent responding in favor of same-sex marriage, an increase from 27 percent in another similar survey in 1996. That survey also showed 55 percent of respondents were opposed to same-sex marriage, a decrease from 68 percent in 1996.

As another sign of changing attitudes toward gay marriage, at least two major US newspapers have begun publishing marriage announcements of same-sex couples that have been now legally wed in Canada. The Washington Post and The Times-Picayune of New Orleans have both printed notices in the past few weeks of couples that traveled to Toronto to be married.

Gays and lesbians recently gained full recognition of marriage rights in Canada when court rulings deemed the government's definition of marriage, strictly between a man and a woman, as unconstitutional.

Source: http://uk.gay.com/headlines/4766

 

[Pookie]

New poll shows generation gap in opposition to gay marriage

By Michael Foust

Jul 22, 2003

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A generation gap exists in the country's debate over same-sex "marriage," new research by the Gallup Organization shows.

According to the research, 55 percent of adults oppose legalizing same-sex "marriage," while 39 percent support it.

However, 61 percent of young adults (ages 18-29) say they support legalizing same-sex "marriage." The 18-29 age bracket is the only one in the poll supportive of the controversial issue.

Among those ages 30-49, only 37 percent support same-sex "marriage." The level of support is 40 percent for those ages 50-64, and a mere 22 percent for those ages 65 and older.

Gallup's research, released July 22, is based on two separate polls -- one of 1,003 adults in June and another of 1,005 adults in May.

Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, attributed the numbers among young adults to two factors: sex education in the public schools and homosexual-friendly entertainment.

"Clearly, we are losing the battle for hearts and minds [of young adults] to the pop culture, to MTV, to Disney and ABC, and to the other networks who are constantly bombarding our young people with positive images of homosexuality," he told Baptist Press.

Another social conservative, Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton, told Baptist Press he believes that support among young adults for same-sex "marriage" is thin and is "not gained by strong conviction." It is a "shrug of the shoulders" position reflected in the "whatever" bumper stickers popular among youth, he said.

"When you put forth some well-reasoned arguments," minds begin changing, said Stanton, Focus on the Family's director of social research and cultural affairs. "I think we can gain a lot of those young people back."

Pointing to other polls showing that young adults are "a little more conservative" than their parents, Stanton said those same adults have a higher view of marriage than their parents did -- "primarily because of the way their own parents' marriage worked out," ending in divorce.

The overall Gallup poll numbers mirror those of other recent polls. A Time/CNN poll of 1,004 adults in July found that 60 percent were opposed to legalizing same-sex "marriage," while 33 percent were for it. Also, a Wirthlin poll of 1,000 adults in March showed that 57 percent support passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would change the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex "marriage."

The Gallup poll, though, shows erosion in the opposition to homosexual "marriage." In 1996, 68 percent of Americans opposed same-sex "marriage" while 27 percent supported it. By 1999 those numbers were 62 percent for, 35 percent against. When including the new poll, opposition to same-sex "marriage" has declined 13 points in only seven years.

"There is a little bit of good and bad," Stanton said of the newest Gallup poll. "The good is that the numbers are what they are. The bad is that the numbers seem to be slowly slipping a bit."

Stanton attributed the slippage in same-sex "marriage" opposition to what Harvard University professor Mary Ann Glendon called "rights talk."

"Our moral discussion within our nation has come down to that," Stanton said. The homosexual community "has seized upon that very successfully -- 'we want everyone to have the right to do everything.'"

Once same-sex "marriage" becomes a reality -- perhaps with a ruling from Massachusetts' highest court any day -- the opposition to same-sex "marriage" will increase, Stanton predicted. Americans only recently have begun debating the issue, he said.

"It's hard to warn people and have people get ready and prepare for an earthquake when they don't have any sense that that earthquake is coming," he said. A ruling for same-sex "marriage," he said, would be an earthquake.

Additionally, he said, social conservatives have not done a good job educating the public about the dangers of same-sex "marriage," Stanton said.

"[W]e need to start doing that," he said. "As the conversation becomes more serious, we will."

Land said the clock is ticking for the country to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. If it doesn't, courts will decide the issue, he said.

"If we don't win this struggle in five years, the courts will have made homosexual marriage a fact," he said. "We've got five years to prevent that from happening, to win the struggle for hearts and minds, to activate those hearts and minds and to get this passed."

Gallup also asked adults their thoughts on civil unions, which give homosexuals the legal benefits of marriage without the term "marriage." Vermont is the only state to have such unions. The population was split - 49 percent of adults support legalizing civil unions, 49 percent oppose it.

Source: http://www.erlc.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID313086|CHID590694|CIID1603924,00.html

Interesting ...

"Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, attributed the numbers among young adults to two factors: sex education in the public schools and homosexual-friendly entertainment."

I think this guy is a bit off the mark, but isn't it amazing what education does to reduce ignorance and bigotry.

Very positive trend ...

"61 percent of young adults (ages 18-29) say they support legalizing same-sex "marriage." The 18-29 age bracket is the only one in the poll supportive of the controversial issue."


There is plenty in this article that is offensive to me. But it's good to know where your opposition stands.

 

[Queersetti]

Here come the ohh poor me arguements. "I have to live in this way and it is such a horrible thing for me to have do deal with it because I don't have the same rights as heteros." Fucking grow up and realize that you make your own life harder, not me. By allowing you ruin my hetero religious ceremonies you would in effect be fucking with my rights. Can't you see that? You are different because you are gay. That is fact. Your actions make you different, are you that stupid that you can't see that?

There is nothing bigoted about coming to the conclusion that you are different. There is a social cost that should be paid for your decision to be gay. Most people aren't gay and you, the minority by far, are gay. Do you really think that you are going to be treated the same? Fundamentally yes you should, realistically you won't. Only when there are about 33% gays in this country, you will then have a voice strong enough to change things for you. Until then, you are merely someone who chooses to suffer for his decisions.

Am I a bigot because I don't want gay public schools that are limited for only gays? Am I bigoted because I want teachers to have to actually work for their job not just show up? Am I bigoted because I want criminals punnished severely for the crimes they have committed? I don't think so, if you disagree then you don't want to be held accountable for your actions.

By all of you pushing that "you" deserve things that 95% or more of the country doesn't get just makes you an invader. It is so unrealistic for you to think that your very simple and small minority will be able to change things to make your way of life seem normal. Wheather you like it or not, you aren't. I have no problem with you being "different", even if you don't think you are different, but you bring on pain on your own accord. I feel sorry for people who pierce things that shouldn't be, I feel sorry for younger people like myself who get tatoos. All they do is push themselves away from society. You are doing the same thing.

Paul

Now please label me a bigot. Pleeeeeeeeese.

You can throw as many absurd red herrings into the argument as you want, the issue does not change. We are not talking about teaching standards, crime, piercing, tattooing, or any of the other issues that get your blood pressure up.

We are talking about equal rights for all citizens.

We are asking for no "special rights". Not one. We are not "asking" for anything at all. We are telling you that we will not accept being treated as second class citizens.

 

[REDWAVE]

Forward to gay marriage!

I agree with Pookie and Queersetti. God forbid that two people who love each other should be able to enjoy the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.