Politics Same-sex Marriages (¡DOS!)

My family is christian and against gay marriages. :( But of course, many christians are...
well many christians are but guess what...
my dad is a priest...and my whole family is christian...i have gone to church basicly every sunday of my life!!! and guess what my whole family supports gay marriage.....
people in this world stereotype so much
as in christians=anti-same sex marriage!!
people who do this just pi** me off!!!
 
well many christians are but guess what...
my dad is a priest...and my whole family is christian...i have gone to church basicly every sunday of my life!!! and guess what my whole family supports gay marriage.....
people in this world stereotype so much
as in christians=anti-same sex marriage!!
people who do this just pi** me off!!!


I completely agree that people shouldn't stereotype in such a way, but sadly it is difficult not to. When the main opponents of same-sex marriage are people who are part of the religious right. When you have people like Pat Robertson who are very vocally against gay-marriage and use their religion to back that up, then it's hard not to stereotype. It certainly isn't right, but maybe we need more people who are religious to come out and be just as vocal for gay-marriage.
 
I completely agree that people shouldn't stereotype in such a way, but sadly it is difficult not to. When the main opponents of same-sex marriage are people who are part of the religious right. When you have people like Pat Robertson who are very vocally against gay-marriage and use their religion to back that up, then it's hard not to stereotype. It certainly isn't right, but maybe we need more people who are religious to come out and be just as vocal for gay-marriage.


Yes and the media needs to also focus on those christians who are in support of it but sadly, they don't. :(
 
South Africa's high court approves gay marriage
Decision paves way for homosexual unions, a first for the continent
Updated: 8:46 a.m. ET Dec. 1, 2005

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa - South Africa's highest court ruled Thursday it is unconstitutional to bar gay marriage, paving the way for this country to become the first in Africa to legalize homosexual unions.

Gay rights activists welcomed the ruling on a continent where homosexuality remains largely taboo.

In its ruling, the court gave the country's parliament a year to change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

"We were thinking we would be calling our friends today and inviting them to our wedding," said Fikile Vilakazi, of the Forum for the Empowerment of Women, who proposed to her partner more than six months ago. "Now they are asking us to wait another year."

South Africa recognized the rights of gay people in the constitution adopted after apartheid ended in 1994, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But married couples have numerous rights still denied gay couples, including the ability to make decisions on each other's behalf in medical emergencies, and inheritance rights if a partner dies without a will.

Marriage is defined in South Africa's common law and Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman. The Constitutional Court has instructed Parliament to add the words "or spouse" to the definition within a year, or else the change will automatically be effected by the courts.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This is so great for all the south african gays out there ... (y) (y) (y)
 
Wow, first, woot woot! Let's see, South Africa acknowledges that ALL of its citizens deserve equality and today their very own Charlize Theron was talking about how she and her boyfriend Charles will marry when gays and lesbians are allowed to. She went on to explain that marriage is supposed to be a commitment of love between two people and that love has no bounds. Gotta love those South Africans. :D
 
Wow, first, woot woot! Let's see, South Africa acknowledges that ALL of its citizens deserve equality and today their very own Charlize Theron was talking about how she and her boyfriend Charles will marry when gays and lesbians are allowed to. She went on to explain that marriage is supposed to be a commitment of love between two people and that love has no bounds. Gotta love those South Africans. :D

I have a lot of respect for Charlize Theron, she had it very very rough as a child! As for her comment i think is very very good that a Hollywood actress is voicing support for lesbian and gay people.
 
I have a lot of respect for Charlize Theron, she had it very very rough as a child! As for her comment i think is very very good that a Hollywood actress is voicing support for lesbian and gay people.

Yes, she had it tough and yet, she seems very down to Earth and she's a great talent. I'm pretty sure she isn't the only celebrity that has spoken for gay marriage, like Barbra Streisand.


I just wanted to post this e-mail that was sent to blogger Andrew Sullivan. It was written by a notre dame student that happens to be gay and catholic.


I apologize if my own anger and pain about the document detract from the larger points I attempt to make, but this instruction feels like a truly personal attack.

Always bear in mind that when God surveyed his creation he deemed it good. Not perfect, good. As creatures we must recognize the value of other despite any deficiencies. Let us not lose sight of the dire consequences this document will likely have. None of its effects have only theoretical ramifications. It harms the flesh and bones of Christ’s Mystical Body, gay and straight, lay and ordained.

This document fundamentally renders the Catholic Church less catholic, less compassionate, and less Christian. Furthermore, it will exacerbate the priest shortage at a time when so many Catholics lack the nourishment provided by a communal celebration of the Eucharist. It alienates not only gay and lesbian Catholics but their loved ones as well - who have perhaps struggled but succeeded in accepting their homosexual loved one as a good person in whom the Spirit is active.


As a gay Catholic I find it difficult to conceive a place for myself that maintains any semblance of intellectual, spiritual or emotional integrity; I see a dismissal of my ability to achieve a humane communion with my fellow persons and with Christ. The Vatican has now further marginalized an already marginalized group by pandering to people's worst fears and stereotypes. This document amounts to a predation upon those men with whom I share a unique emotional commiseration and who thus speak more effectively to my particular spiritual struggle. It attempts to amputate part of the Mystical Body.



We cannot pass this position off as a 'hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner' exhortation otherwise a commitment to celibacy would suffice. The equation of predilection to actual act has dangerous implications for all Catholics. The inclination to sin, common to all humans and part of our imperfection, should never be squared with sin itself lest we abandon the hope for living in a Christ-like way by overcoming the inclination to sin to instead act with love and justice.

What those who condemn homosexuality fail to realize is that it is not only or even primarily about sex, just as heterosexual attraction is not primarily about the act. A non-normative attraction does not constitute an 'affective immaturity' that precludes normal relational interactions. In fact, in my experience and the experience of every other gay person I know, the stifling of our sexuality through denial, self-loathing, an attempt to enter straight relationships, or a spiritually unsatisfying celibacy causes much more dysfunction in relationships of all types than does admitted homosexuality. The 'trial' of homosexuality comes from the fear of reprobation or the actual rejection of others, to which the Church now contributes under the pretext of stabilizing the priesthood. Once we come to terms with our own sexuality and remember that we are still children of God, we can begin to see ourselves as God does: good, imperfect but unquestionably good.
 
i just remembered that a couple of years ago there was australia's first gay marrage in perth.
i can't exactly remember when it happened but it was all over the news for a couple of days
 
I personally dont see what the big deal is about same-sex marriage. If two people love each other shouldnt they have the right to marriage and to live somewhere without being ridiculed because of who they are? It's just stupid. -_-
 
well, I am for gay marriage....marriage is about love between two people, it should not matter what gender the other person in your life is. (y)
 
I'm all for gay marriage. I grew up conservative Christian but life has a way of making you form your own standards. I still consider myself a christiani. It really doesn't matter who you love, just so long as you are blessed enough to love. Stereotypes on all sides really suck. Every person is different, people just need to figure that out and we'll save so much fighting. Life is too short to fight.
 
I don't have anything else to add since it's been said, but I just wanted to say that my friend Mikey just got engaged this weekend! I'm so happy for him!
 
I'm all for gay marriage. I grew up conservative Christian but life has a way of making you form your own standards. I still consider myself a christiani. It really doesn't matter who you love, just so long as you are blessed enough to love. Stereotypes on all sides really suck. Every person is different, people just need to figure that out and we'll save so much fighting. Life is too short to fight.

i'm absolutely with you. i'm a proud lesbian and i'm actually getting married in about 3 years. i think the whole stink about gay marriage is so religiously-biased that we can't seem to remember that little thing called "The Separation of Church and State." Bush consistently lets his religious beliefs come into play with most issues, as do other political officials, and it's completely wrong.

expect to see me on the picket line infront of the White House if Bush decides to take action against gay marriage! ^_^ you love who you love, and everyone should have the right to marry someone they love as much as we have the right to divorce someone we never loved in the firstplace.
 
Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states
Created: 2/21/2006 10:56:42 AM
Updated:2/21/2006 11:11:25 AM
Efforts to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children are emerging across the USA as a second front in the culture wars that began during the 2004 elections over same-sex marriage.
Steps to pass laws or secure November ballot initiatives are underway in at least 16 states, adoption, gay rights and conservative groups say. Some, such as Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky, approved constitutional amendments in 2004 banning gay marriage.

"Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," says Greg Quinlan of Ohio's Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group.

Florida has banned all gays and lesbians from adopting since 1977, although they can be foster parents. State court challenges and a campaign by entertainer Rosie O'Donnell to overturn the law have failed. A pending bill would allow judges to grant exceptions.

Mississippi bans adoption by gay couples, but gay singles can adopt. Utah prohibits all unmarried couples from adoption.

Kent Markus of the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy in Ohio says he hasn't seen this much activity in 15 years as a researcher.

Richard Carlson, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, says adoption laws based on judgments of morality offer "a weak argument" and will face legal challenges. He cites US Supreme Court rulings striking down bans on interracial marriage and sodomy, which reflected prevailing views when enacted. The high court has not taken up a state ban on gay adoption.

Religious groups and state courts are grappling with the issue. Roman Catholic bishops in Massachusetts are seeking an exemption from state anti-bias laws to allow the church to bar gays from adopting through its social service agencies. Meanwhile, a judge in Missouri ruled last week that the state could not deny a foster care license to a lesbian.

© 2006

Gannett News Service


MTV's True Life actually had an episode recently called, "I Have Gay Parents" where they followed two high school students and one college student. There was no difference, other than the parents being gay. Each set of parents had the same worries and problems that every family faces. Each family did not produce a "abnormal" or "gay" child, these three individuals are just normal people with two parents that loved them and each other.

I also have to bring up three-year-old Ronnie Paris who died last year after being abused by father because he suspected that his son was gay...at age THREE! His mother basically ignored what was happening and admitted to doing so. I think every child deserves to be in a home with loving parent(s) instead of ones that are neglectful, physical, emotionally and verbally abusive.


Personally, I would rather be raised by one of the couples on True Life special than Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston or The Osbournes. None of their kids have to scream for attention by either making myspace pages saying how they like to "dance like a wh*re" (Bobbi Christina age 14, her username was "nympho"), or had a door slammed in their face by one of their parents, and neither of those kids have ever been sent to rehab. And when they spoke to their parents, they were respectful and not every other word was a swear. It doesn't make sense to me how these politicians would rather have these kids live in foster homes or adoption agencies instead of having a stable home and parent(s). Stability and security are vital to a child's development and being sent foster home to foster home is the complete antithesis of that.
 
Can we lock all these fools up in a damp cell somewhere? Notice please that Specter is not even for same sex marriages, yet votes for the debate to go forward. Notice how this bill has no chance to pass but the Republicans want to debate it nonetheless. It makes them look more 'conservative' for the upcoming election? No it makes you look like time wasting morons.

Regardless of your opinion on the subject, I assume we all can agree that this is a mere political ploy.

It turns my stomach.


Heres the article.....

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Amid increasing partisan tension over President Bush's judicial nominees and domestic wiretapping, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional amendment — which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages — to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing.

Democrats complained that bringing up the amendment is a purely political move designed to appeal to the GOP's conservative base in this year of midterm elections. Under the domed ceiling of the ornate and historic President's Room off the Senate floor, senators voted 10-8 to send the measure forward. Not all those who voted "yes" support the amendment, however. Specter said he is "totally opposed" to it, but felt it deserved a debate in the Senate.

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman," it says.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has scheduled a vote on the proposed amendment the week of June 5.

The issue has ignited a cultural and political debate over what constitutes marriage and the legal rights of gay partners.

Earlier this week, Georgia announced it will appeal a judge's ruling that struck down its voter-approved ban on gay marriage. Gov. Sonny Perdue said he will call a special legislative session if the state Supreme Court doesn't rule on the issue soon.

The Georgia constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was approved by 76 percent of the state's voters in November 2004. On Tuesday, however, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell ruled the measure violated the Georgia constitution's single-subject rules for ballot questions.

The issue has been on the political radar across the nation for more than two years.

On Election Day in 2004, a presidential year, initiatives on gay marriage and civil unions were on the ballot in 11 states, driven in part by opposition to the Massachusetts state Supreme Judicial Court's recognition of same-sex marriage and Republican calculations that the issue would send conservative voters to the polls.

Two states — Louisiana and Missouri — had approved bans earlier in the year.




Well! THIS should prove a nice distraction from the illegal-immigration mess that's turned sour...

...which itself was a distraction from the wiretapping scandals...

...which were a distraction from the Jack Abramoff connections...

...which were a distraction from the Valerie Plame revelations...

...which was a distraction from the worsening Iraq situation...

...which were a distraction from the Hurricane Katrina fiasco...

...which was a distraction from the Downing Street memo...

..which was a distraction from the Medicare mess...

...which was a distraction from the CIA torture-camp expose...

...well, you get the picture.


You've got to admit: This guy is by FAR the best president we've had in the 21st century.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060514/ap_on_...sh_gay_marriage


My my my, how Dick has changed his tune.


I think it's GREAT idea to use the constitution to deny rights to others cuz we think it's 'icky'. :rolleyes: We should totally outlaw interracial marriages next, and then outlaw inter-faith marriages, then after all that, we can limit it to white Christians only, like we seem to want to!

Under-attack, my ass...
Either everybody can get married, or no one can!


Note to Mary Cheney: "Almost' don't cut it. She had a chance to do the right thing during the '04 election. She chose to remain silent as her party tried to use bigotry to stay in office.

How sad that Mary Cheney continues to be an apologist for the Republican Party. I understand that she loves her father, but her loyalty to his career comes at a tremendous cost to millions of gay Americans who don't hold a fraction of the rights of other Americans.

The fact that she "almost" quit her job with the 2004 Bush/Cheney ticket should not be congratulated or applauded. Almost doesn't count. In the old days, we had a name for people like her: We called them Uncle Tom.


And what say the opposition? "The Constitution isn't deny anyone anything. It's defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

Hey, look! They're right! On a closer re-reading, I found the following phrases in very, very faint ink all throughout the Constitution:


Preamble: "We, the People of the United States (except queers)..."

Article I, Section II: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States (except queers)..."

Section III: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years (and be proven straight, of course)..."

Section V: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior (except, y'know, the butt-sex)..."

Section VII: "The Congress shall have Power To lay (that means IMPOSE, you pervs!) and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."


And, of course, the Bill of Rights makes it even clearer:


Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, and to string faggots up on a pole (but that was implied under "free religion" anyway)."

Amendment II: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, especially against homos, shall not be infringed."

Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless you're pretty damn sure they're gay--and if you can get three or more guys to help you do it."

Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of straight guys who know what to do with faggots."

Amendment VII: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, which includes lockin' up criminal queers to guarantee a lot of gang rape behind bars, which is the only thing them dam queers is good fer."


I have seen the light! All this time, I stupidly assumed gays were human beings with the same rights as regular, decent citizens. Silly me. I must have skipped class the day that was taught in civics. Who knew?
 
20060419_florida2.jpg



Do these guys scare the hell out of anybody else?


"God hates .........."

What a great role model. Here I thought God was all about forgiveness, some more forgiveness, love, and enlightenment ... but no, it's hate.

The all knowing, all powerful hates ..... I would have words with this God.
 
And now Fred Phelps and his band of cronies are now attending funerals of soldiers holding those signs. :angry: They claim that America's acceptance of gays is the reason why these soldiers are dying.


John Legend made a good point when he appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. A lot of the right wing conservatives voted for this administration with the hope of having a gay marriage banned being written into the constitution. But they had to wait almost two years to have it even brought up

Here's the clip
Click it
 
I guess this is more of local news (as in local for me). But I definitely felt it was worth mentioning on here.

NC Baptist propose strong anti-gay policy
06:39 PM EDT on Thursday, May 25, 2006
By MARIA KOTULA / 6NEWS
E-mail Maria: MKotula@WCNC.com


Some churches have gay members others have gay reverends and others are banning homosexuals all together. The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina came up with a strong anti-gay policy at their board of directors meeting this week.

Homosexuality is a divisive issue in many religions, but soon for many Baptist churches in North Carolina there will be no gray area.

“I'm not shocked at all. The Baptist State Convention has been going in this direction for years,” said Reverend Mick Hinson with the Metropolitan Community Church.

The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina gave their stamp of approval on a strict anti-gay policy. Simply put--- Baptist churches that welcome gays may no longer be eligible for membership in the convention.

“I think some churches will lose members over it and other churches will gain members because of it,” Hinson said.

Hinson is part of a coalition of religious leaders who support gay rights in the church. Under the policy Baptist churches would not be able to accept gay members. Church leaders would not be able to make any public statements supporting gay organizations and it would make gay clergy forbidden.

Hinson has a personal reaction to all this, he is a gay reverend.

“From my perspective and from our denominations perspective we do find it very judgmental, we find it very discriminating and hateful because we do not believe the bible condemns homosexual people,” Hinson said.

6NEWS talked to the president of the convention's board of directors. Don Warren confirmed what he told a Raleigh newspaper--- that quote—“we believe homosexuality is a sin, as are many other, but we are not aware of any other sin that has a national organization that promotes its happening beginning in kindergarten or first grade."

“I've just finished reading all four gospels cover to cover and I've yet to uncover where Jesus says homosexuality is a sin,” Hinson said.

The convention is putting a half a dozen churches on notice that their membership may be revoked. Many of those churches are affiliated with the more liberal "Alliance of Baptists," which welcomes gay members.

The new policy is expected to be ratified at the convention’s annual meeting in November.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/storie...s.206593e8.html
 
Back
Top