Bad week for Dems!!!!

[JAB]

what? My point was that I think there are PLENTY of situations for kids to grow up in that are much much worse than having gay parents.

My point was that just because you are gay doesn't mean you are not trailer trash and/or on welfare. To say it would be worse to live with a trailer park trash abuser than to live with gay people makes no sense, because someone could live with a GAY trailer park trash abuser. That would be worse.

I know a gay couple with a child. They are on welfare. They do really love their child as much as any parent does. And they do not abuse her or each other. But, I gringe everytime I see that little girl run into a room yelling "Momma1! Momma2! Come see what I ___(blank)___!"

[dhussdawg]

DH, you have any friends that are gay?

SD, do you have any friends?

[dhussdawg]

Next thing you know, theyll want to be able to kiss openly in public like normal people...and own land...and..god forbid... VOTE! Screw that! :icon_wink

I mean, really, what kind of dominoeffect do you think would happen if you allow gays to marry and adopt kids? What do you think theyre going to ask for next that is going to be so ridiculous and wrong?

I could see registered sex offenders wanting to adopt next or other "changed convicts" who have turned around. It will be no holds barred on who wants to be able to adopt. It is not about what gays will ask for next, it is about who will ask to adopt children next.

As for kissing in public, I dont like to watch anyone do that much less two gay people.

As for Salty's question, yes I do have a few gay friends. I obviously live in the South so gay people arent a plenty where I am from, at least that are my age. The older age group around atown has its fair share of gays.

[veerbone]

William Jefferson is getting the shaft!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hilarious...


I looked up "Crooked Louisiana Politician" in my encyclopedia, and it said "see Jefferson, William"

[Rooster]

This is good for you guys, because now you can focus more on the war "success" and less on the Defense of Marriage Act for November elections... because let's face it...Republicans trying to pass a "defense" of marriage???

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced

Maybe that can be the democrats paltform for 2008. Vote for us, we all stay married. We just get BJ's while president and lie under oath about it.

Its a good thing democrats don't get divorced. If you want to point fingers, go through all 100 US senators. I will bet that more democrats are divorced that republicans. If you are going to point out divorced government officials, do both parties. Do you think democrats are against divorce? You have me puzzled.

[Rooster]

Next thing you know, theyll want to be able to kiss openly in public like normal people...and own land...and..god forbid... VOTE! Screw that! :icon_wink

I mean, really, what kind of dominoeffect do you think would happen if you allow gays to marry and adopt kids? What do you think theyre going to ask for next that is going to be so ridiculous and wrong?

Just my $.02 but, if it were up to me. One would not be allowed to vote unless he/she owned land. But that is another debate we will save for a different day.

[duckbillplatty]

A line has to be drawn about what? Defending marriage?

:-) I get the point, but what I was referring to is that the Republican party wanted to remind people that it was rooted in conservative values and that it represented the large portion of the country that does not want gay marriage.

Interestingly enough, a large portion of the Democratic party is totally against gay marriage.

You know, this reminds me of something that happened about a week and a half ago. A white liberal professor was standing in the hall preaching to a black janitor about politics. He was ranting about how Jesus would be arrested as a terrorist because of dark skin, blah, blah, blah. Well I unwillingly had to listen to the whole thing since they were right outside my lab door. So when the professor started about how Republicans are ruining America by destroying the civil rights movement, the black guy asked for him to explain. He said that gay marriage is the largest infringement of human rights this decade. Yeah, that professor might as well have stabbed the janitor.

[champion110]

[quote=duckbillplattyHe said that gay marriage is the largest infringement of human rights this decade. Yeah, that professor might as well have stabbed the janitor.[/quote]

The professor was correct, though. It does not surprise me that conservatives don't see that - they don't see a lot of things until much later in history. They like to things to remain the same. I don't agree with that, but I understand it. It does surprise me when a minority that has either experienced discrimination (or has previous generations that endured it) doesn't see it. However, most don't.

Only the future generations will look back and see it. That is just the way it goes.

[duckbillplatty]

I'm not really concerned with gay marriage, if a bunch of fairies getting hitched is the biggest issue in what I think is wrong with America, then things have gotten better in the last 15 minutes. I just do NOT think it's the largest civil rights infringement of the decade in any way. That's what pisses the black population off about it. Their civil rights movement overcame much greater inequalities than what gay people have to endure, so when the coming out parades start shouting "We Shall Overcome", the blood-pressure of the average African-Americal rises.

[champion110]

I'm not really concerned with gay marriage, if a bunch of fairies getting hitched is the biggest issue in what I think is wrong with America, then things have gotten better in the last 15 minutes. I just do NOT think it's the largest civil rights infringement of the decade in any way. That's what pisses the black population off about it. Their civil rights movement overcame much greater inequalities than what gay people have to endure, so when the coming out parades start shouting "We Shall Overcome", the blood-pressure of the average African-Americal rises.

I see your point, but there is the statement "of our time" included in the statment the professor made.

Let's take a look at history and current status:
Gay persons were considered mentally ill until the 1970's
Going further back, they were put in concentration camps along with the Jews in Germany.
Up until the 1980's, hardly any Gay person was out of the closet in this country for fear of losing EVERYTHING.
It is still a widely accepted practice in some private organizations to fire someone because they are Gay. No law against it - See Cracker Barrell case.
They can no marry the person they love.
They cannot legally adopt children in most states.
They are at large risk of hate crimes.
They have no benefit sharing (insurance, retirement, etc.) with their partner in most states.
They are many time left by their own family once they admit who they are.

It is similar to the fight of African Americans in this country (without the slavory issue). The big difference is that a Gay person can hide it, usually. This has good and bad implications. Because it is able to be hidden, the discrimination is allowed to go further. One has to endure it, if they want certain privileges that other Americans enjoy. Also, there is usually no family for a Gay person that has endured the same discrimation. There is no one to depend upon and share your experiences with growing up. That is one big reason that it stays hidden. It is, also, a big reason for the very high suicide rate of Gay teens.

The Church is not a place of safety for them. Their family is not a place of safety for them. Then they have to look forward to growing up in a society that they will not reap some of the benefits of. I didn't even bring up how they are made fun of, once someone does find out. Working with some Gay teens really opened my eyes about this issue. It is a sad issue that affects some people dearly - some with their life. I worked with one kid that is gone now. His parents sent him to a "NoMo HoMo" group. They tried their best and he stayed with it for about 7 months. He ran away after that - when he was around 16. His parents have no clue where he is. That was several years ago.

[champion110]

The point should be, though, that it is not a competition. That brings us back to the "piece of the pie" point that I make a lot in the athletic forums. When it becomes a competition between minorities, they end up fighting each other and not trying to gain status as a whole. There is no reason to fight over a small piece of pie when the rest are getting the other 3/4ths of it.

[dhussdawg]

I'm not really concerned with gay marriage, if a bunch of fairies getting hitched is the biggest issue in what I think is wrong with America, then things have gotten better in the last 15 minutes. I just do NOT think it's the largest civil rights infringement of the decade in any way. That's what pisses the black population off about it. Their civil rights movement overcame much greater inequalities than what gay people have to endure, so when the coming out parades start shouting "We Shall Overcome", the blood-pressure of the average African-Americal rises.

Well, there is a philosophical difference here, too. Many conservatives believe that being gay is a sin and a choice. Everybody knows (I hope) that being black is not a sin nor a choice. A man should not be considered less for something he has no control over. This is where the black and gay civil rights argument parts. Being black is natural, being gay is not in many people's minds, including my own.

[champion110]

Well, there is a philosophical difference here, too. Many conservatives believe that being gay is a sin and a choice. Everybody knows (I hope) that being black is not a sin nor a choice. A man should not be considered less for something he has no control over. This is where the black and gay civil rights argument parts. Being black is natural, being gay is not in many people's minds, including my own.

I am not getting back into that one. However, would your mind change if it were shown NOT to be a choice? How would it change your view of this? In addition to this, is there anything that would prove that to you? Some are so convinced that it is a sin that they would not be open to any scientific discovery. Sort of like the world is flat view.

Seriously, though, I think you hit the nail on the head. That is the argument against Gay persons being able to marry and have all the same rights and privilages as Heterosexuals.

[dhussdawg]

I am not getting back into that one. However, would your mind change if it were shown NOT to be a choice? How would it change your view of this? In addition to this, is there anything that would prove that to you? Some are so convinced that it is a sin that they would not be open to any scientific discovery. Sort of like the world is flat view.

Seriously, though, I think you hit the nail on the head. That is the argument against Gay persons being able to marry and have all the same rights and privilages as Heterosexuals.

I will always think it is a sin (for the Bible tells me so), and I dont believe a gay gene exists. I dont have anything against gays having unions and all of the same rights (benefits, etc.) that married people get. That is all secularist, worldly stuff. I just dont want any gay up on an altar making a vow to God to live in sin. It is sort of contradictory to what God said and believes in.

[champion110]

I will always think it is a sin (for the Bible tells me so), and I dont believe a gay gene exists. I dont have anything against gays having unions and all of the same rights (benefits, etc.) that married people get. That is all secularist, worldly stuff. I just dont want any gay up on an altar making a vow to God to live in sin. It is sort of contradictory to what God said and believes in.

I respect your viewpoint. I will say that there are some religions that marry people that probably don't jive with your religious preference either. Last time I checked, I don't think Jewish people believed that Jesus was the son of God. Maybe we should not let them marry, either. Then there are some churches that believe drinking is a sin. Some others believe that blah blah blah - but that is another topic. :icon_wink

I do agree with you that marriage can be a religious ceremony, but the legalities are a different subject.