What party to the homosexuals go to?

[Yossarian]

Democrats apparently.

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/borat.html

[NoMyths]

And y'all do know who Borat is, yes?

[sachmo71]

Probably the party that isn't try to pass a constitutional amendment to take away the rights of homosexuals? Just a guess here.

[airulf]

And Jews go to hell, at least according to this republican.

[Daimyo]

Did someone actually take that video seriously? Maybe you should google "Sacha Baron Cohen."

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Probably the party that isn't try to pass a constitutional amendment to take away the rights of homosexuals? Just a guess here.

There is no law making homosexual marriage legal, therefore there are no rights to take away. What the Rebublicans want to do is keep the status quo, and keep the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and woman - something I beleive the majority of the nation supports.

[Senator]

Log Cabin Republicans

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

There is no law making homosexual marriage legal, therefore there are no rights to take away. What the Rebublicans want to do is keep the status quo, and keep the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and woman - something I beleive the majority of the nation supports.

That was really bad.

There is no law making homosexual marriage legal, therefore there are no rights to take away.

Is there a law making walking legal? This isn't what you were trying to say. Rights are rights specifically because you don't need a law specifying their legality.

What the Rebublicans want to do is keep the status quo, and keep the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and woman - something I beleive the majority of the nation supports.

You are correct that the majority of the nation supports that, including me but almost certainly for different reasons than you. However, this is not the status quo. If it were there wouldn't be a need for a Constitutional amendment (which I oppose because it's stupid) would there?

[Yossarian]

btw..

I dont know if anyone took the video seriously. Obviously its edited purely for comic effect and not 'fairness' or anything.

I heard of the response first:

http://www.jamesbroadwater.com/HBO.html

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Is there a law making walking legal? This isn't what you were trying to say. Rights are rights specifically because you don't need a law specifying their legality.

Not saying you are wrong in your general response, Huck, but this is just completely wrong.

History has shown that some of the rights we have in this country, like freedom of the press and religion and freedom to not be slaves and a bunch of other rights and freedoms DO need to be guaranteed by laws...or they are taken away. So your definition of what a "right" is (cue pun) is wrong.

CR

[Bee]

definition of "right"

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q167.htm

Read it any way you wish, like everything it can be interpreted a dozen different ways.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

The thing is, not to start this war over again, is that gay marriage is going to happen. I've seen polls of 25 and under's where it's 2 to 1 in favor of civil unions and 60-40 in favor of gay marriage.

[SFL Cat]

I think most people are okay with what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. However, I think a growing number of people are growing increasingly sick and tired of gays getting in their faces demanding a certain status for their lifestyles and I don't think its just the "religious" folks either.

I know a lot of black groups are deeply resentful of gay activists painting their cause as the equivalent of the African-American's fight for civil rights. I also know a lot of gay folks who are also resentful toward the more "activist" segments of their population. Most of them are well-to-do professionals who want to live quiet lives and who regard their sex-lives as a private matter that is no one else's business. They certainly don't want to be numbered among their more "radical" activist alter-egos.

Now, I have no problem with civil unions, because I guess gay folks who separate need to have legal protections and guidelines when they fight over splitting up property and money just like hetero married couples do. However, a gay union will never be the equivalent of a heterosexual union for one simple reason. One of the major functions of the traditional family is to procreate -- to bear and raise children. This is something that can never happen naturally in a homosexual union.

[Kodos]

I say, let gay people get married if they like. Them doing so doesn't hurt anybody. If heterosexuals are so worried about the sanctity of marriage, why do such a high percentage of them end in divorce? Civil unions are fine too. Just give gay people the same legal rights that heterosexuals have and call that union whatever makes you happiest.

We have more important things to worry about, like, oh, I don't know, terrorists trying to kill us all.

[MrBug708]

If heterosexuals are so worried about the sanctity of marriage, why do such a high percentage of them end in divorce?

A lot of "Christians" who end up in divorce probably were nothing more than the Easter and Christmas "Christians"

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I say, let gay people get married if they like. Them doing so doesn't hurt anybody. If heterosexuals are so worried about the sanctity of marriage, why do such a high percentage of them end in divorce? Civil unions are fine too. Just give gay people the same legal rights that heterosexuals have and call that union whatever makes you happiest.

We have more important things to worry about, like, oh, I don't know, terrorists trying to kill us all.

That's what President Bush and John Kerry and everybody has been saying all along, but no, the Gays don't want that, they want to embarrass the Religeous Right by destroying their values. That's gay.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's what President Bush and John Kerry and everybody has been saying all along, but no, the Gays don't want that, they want to embarrass the Religeous Right by destroying their values. That's gay.

those damn gays and their devious plots to destroy christianity. Christianity has been around for 2000 years, but it's all gonna come crashing down once two gays get married and all the christians get embarassed. Bahhahahahah.

[Tigercat]

The problem is, there is supposed to be a separation between church and state, yet governments within the US acknowledge the union between two people in religious contexts only.

We shouldn't be talking about marriage. The Government shouldn't even be involved in that, it should be a religious matter only. Governments should only acknowledge civil unions between two people for government purposes, and said unions should be available to all people regardless of religious creed.

Why is society so hung up on sex? Civil unions wouldn't even have to be a sex based thing. Perhaps two people would want to get one independent of a relationship (for example perhaps a couple of elderly Americans that would want to live together..)

The problem is we are all fucking held up on sex. Who cares if two people are or aren't doing something or nothing in their bedroom. Who's to say if two men or two women(or even a man and a woman) spend their lives together if they are having sex? Why are we even assuming so? You hear certain "social conservatives" say "I don't want to support their lifestyle." How would one know what their lifestyle is? Why are we assuming?

Bottom line, courts should have already abolished our governments recognizing a religious ceremony. One type of contract between two people(marriage as it is now, what may be called civil unions in the future) should not be kept away from other groups of people based on their sex. Its discrimination.

People have the right to be not discriminated on the basis of sex or gender.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's what President Bush and John Kerry and everybody has been saying all along, but no, the Gays don't want that, they want to embarrass the Religeous Right by destroying their values. That's gay.

If everyone would start worrying a little more about their own marriage and a little less about everyone else's marriage/civil union/whatever it might be called, the world would be a happier place.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think most people are okay with what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. However, I think a growing number of people are growing increasingly sick and tired of gays getting in their faces demanding a certain status for their lifestyles and I don't think its just the "religious" folks either.

I know a lot of black groups are deeply resentful of gay activists painting their cause as the equivalent of the African-American's fight for civil rights. I also know a lot of gay folks who are also resentful toward the more "activist" segments of their population. Most of them are well-to-do professionals who want to live quiet lives and who regard their sex-lives as a private matter that is no one else's business. They certainly don't want to be numbered among their more "radical" activist alter-egos.

Now, I have no problem with civil unions, because I guess gay folks who separate need to have legal protections and guidelines when they fight over splitting up property and money just like hetero married couples do. However, a gay union will never be the equivalent of a heterosexual union for one simple reason. One of the major functions of the traditional family is to procreate -- to bear and raise children. This is something that can never happen naturally in a homosexual union.

I must admit is becoming more and more amazing to me that the word religion or religious is taking on such a negative connotation. This is exactly what is wrong with the moral fiber of this nation. This was not the case 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If everyone would start worrying a little more about their own marriage and a little less about everyone else's marriage/civil union/whatever it might be called, the world would be a happier place.

We could have called it a "civil union" last year and been done with it.

[Kodos]

If I joined a civil union with Fritz, would it be okay for me to call him my husband, or would that be embarrassing the religious right too?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I must admit is becoming more and more amazing to me that the word religion or religious is taking on such a negative connotation. This is exactly what is wrong with the moral fiber of this nation. This was not the case 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

I think if people would stop using religion to justify their own prejudices, then religion wouldn't be getting a bad name. But when people keep using the Bible or whatever religious text they happen to believe in to justify why they dislike gays/African Americans/Jews/circus freaks/midgets, etc., it tends to make you dislike the religion that person is associated with, unfortunately.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If I joined a civil union with Fritz, would it be okay for me to call him my husband, or would that be embarrassing the religious right too?

I honestly don't care what you do. But since it makes no difference to you, call it a civil union.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I must admit is becoming more and more amazing to me that the word religion or religious is taking on such a negative connotation. This is exactly what is wrong with the moral fiber of this nation. This was not the case 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

Ok I'm an idiot, you didnt quote my post, talk about quick on the trigger am I!

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

A lot of "Christians" who end up in divorce probably were nothing more than the Easter and Christmas "Christians"

I know this is judgemental but I call them Creasters....There are two different kind of christians tho..."Born Again" and then the people who are just Chrsitians...Obvoisly anyone that is a true Christian has to be Born Again

[PSUColonel]

"I think most people are okay with what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. However, I think a growing number of people are growing increasingly sick and tired of gays getting in their faces demanding a certain status for their lifestyles and I don't think its just the "religious" folks either."


This was what I was commenting on. As to say it's just not the freaks and zealots who think this way, so therefore it must be a legitimate point or issue.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I must admit is becoming more and more amazing to me that the word religion or religious is taking on such a negative connotation. This is exactly what is wrong with the moral fiber of this nation. This was not the case 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

You're absolutely right. This negativity towards the Islamic religion definitely raises questions about our moral fiber.

[PSUColonel]

It was just an observation Tiger, I actually agree wi the content of your original post.

[nfg22]

Seriously i think atheism is now the cool thing to be....

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

You're absolutely right. This negativity towards the Islamic religion definitely raises questions about our moral fiber.

In case you were wondering, there is nothing wrong with Islam as a whole, it's the interpertation of radicals who are the problem. And if Islam does advocate the violent destruction of others who don't embrace it, then by all means, no one should practice this religion.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

In case you were wondering, there is nothing wrong with Islam as a whole, it's the interpertation of radicals who are the problem. And if Islam does advocate the violent destruction of others who don't embrace it, then by all means, no one should practice this religion.

By introducing doubt into the equation, one begins the process of disintegration. And though it's been happening for centuries, I believe your question is thus answered.

[Dutch]

The one constant for peace in all societies through the years has been solidarity. To either be one way or to respect those who are different.

The liberal left is offering no such consolations into today's social battle against traditional values.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

In case you were wondering, there is nothing wrong with Islam as a whole, it's the interpertation of radicals who are the problem. And if Islam does advocate the violent destruction of others who don't embrace it, then by all means, no one should practice this religion.

I think just possibly that Christians have been guilty of "the violent destruction of others who don't embrace it" a time or two. Should people stop practicing Christianity too then?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The one constant for peace in all societies through the years has been solidarity. To either be one way or to respect those who are different.

The liberal left is offering no such consolations into today's social battle against traditional values.

I'm sorry, but the religious right does not respect those who are different. Those who are different are told that they are sinful and that they are going to hell to burn for all of eternity.

Gays are not trying to tell the religious right how to live their own lives. Gays are asking to be able to live their own lives however they like. Some want to get married.

Would you be happy if you were told your marriage was just a "civil union"?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The one constant for peace in all societies through the years has been solidarity. To either be one way or to respect those who are different.

The liberal left is offering no such consolations into today's social battle against traditional values.

You were doing okay until the final sentence. Ask yourself if the conservative right offers such consolations.

[PSUColonel]

I will be the first to agree that kind of behavior has no place in Chrisitanity. Just as it has no place in Muslim. Certaninly none of it is advocated by God, Allah, etc..

[PSUColonel]

I will be the first to agree that kind of behavior has no place in Chrisitanity. Just as it has no place in Muslim. Certaninly none of it is advocated by God, Allah, etc..

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm sorry, but the religious right does not respect those who are different. Those who are different are told that they are sinful and that they are going to hell to burn for all of eternity.

And if that is their religious belief, based on thousands of years of tradition and doctrine, what, you're saying they're supposed to trash their belief system because it offends a small segment of the population because they choose to live in this way? Who is forcing who's belief system on whom?

Personally, I find it immoral (and frankly the idea of a couple of guys humping makes me queasy), but as long as someone isn't throwing it my face, telling me I have to condone it, and teach my children to condone it, I say live and let live. Then it is a matter between consenting adults and their conscience. My belief system isn't going to change just because a group of people decide to live a certain way, but don't want others to think what they are doing is immoral. If it worries you, keep your business private.

Gays are not trying to tell the religious right how to live their own lives. Gays are asking to be able to live their own lives however they like. Some want to get married.

Yes they are. In this case, they are telling Christians that their belief system is wrong and has to be changed to accomodate and/or sanction their lifestyle. They are seeking social justification for what has traditionally been considered abberant behavior. If this wasn't the case, they would simply keep their sexual life private, or simply disregard or dismiss the opinion of those with whom they didn't agree.

Would you be happy if you were told your marriage was just a "civil union"?

Wouldn't matter to me. The government can call it what it wants. What is more important to me is the vows I took before God and the woman I have spent the past 21 years with.

[PSUColonel]

well saif SFL

[Crapshoot]

No one is asking the Christians to change their beliefs- they have every right to it. What people are saying simply is that relegating an entire class of Americans to second-class citizens because what makes them horny is another member of the same sex is predujicial at best, and absolute zealotry in practice at worse- your right to your religion does not translate as your right to use your religious beliefs as the basis for law. Morality exists outside of relgion- and as long as the religous right is unwilling to accept the basic premise and tries to enforce law based on a flawed doctrine, I will have a problem with that wing.

Look, I dont support any idiocy like forcing churches to recognize gay marriage or to allow it to be performed in their locations- that is their belief system and I fully suport their right to just that. Primarily, the government has no business in marriage- its a civil institution, and not a religous one. The justifications for the amendment crap are fundementally based in religious doctrine, and have no place in a civil issue- should we start taking lines about the Bible tactic support for Slavery and legislate law based on that as well ?

[Crapshoot]

btw, would anyone like to take a guess at what the correlation between people who opposed the civil rights movement and who oppose gay marriage is ?

[PSUColonel]

"your right to your religion does not translate as your right to use your religious beliefs as the basis for law"

excuse me, but that was the very basis many secular groups came to America on. Eg, the Quakers!!???

[Kodos]

Gay people aren't trying to say that Christians can't get married. But Christians are trying to keep gays from getting married. Gay people are merely asking for their relationships to be given the same treatment as a heterosexual couple receives.

And gays don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight. Think about it. Could you force yourself to go against your nature to marry a man if that was society's accepted standard? Probably not. So why expect a gay person to go against their inborn nature?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The one constant for peace in all societies through the years has been solidarity. To either be one way or to respect those who are different.

The liberal left is offering no such consolations into today's social battle against traditional values.

200 years ago Dutch, keeping slaves were traditional values- as was keeping a woman at home without education, and seeing her role as a childbearer and not much more. 100 years ago, treating minorities as second class citizens were traditional values. Are you in favor of these "traditional values" as well, or is the bigotry selective ? Face it - "traditional values" is a misnomer applied to anything with the arguement "well we've always done it this way", and can hardly be utilized as an arguement.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Look, I dont support any idiocy like forcing churches to recognize gay marriage or to allow it to be performed in their locations- that is their belief system and I fully suport their right to just that.

Agreed.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think most people are okay with what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. However, I think a growing number of people are growing increasingly sick and tired of gays getting in their faces demanding a certain status for their lifestyles and I don't think its just the "religious" folks either.

I know a lot of black groups are deeply resentful of gay activists painting their cause as the equivalent of the African-American's fight for civil rights. I also know a lot of gay folks who are also resentful toward the more "activist" segments of their population. Most of them are well-to-do professionals who want to live quiet lives and who regard their sex-lives as a private matter that is no one else's business. They certainly don't want to be numbered among their more "radical" activist alter-egos.

Now, I have no problem with civil unions, because I guess gay folks who separate need to have legal protections and guidelines when they fight over splitting up property and money just like hetero married couples do. However, a gay union will never be the equivalent of a heterosexual union for one simple reason. One of the major functions of the traditional family is to procreate -- to bear and raise children. This is something that can never happen naturally in a homosexual union.

that is the religous definition of a marriage, while the issue is the civil institution- two people who have committed to each other wish to seal their committment. Personally, I dont believe the government has any damn business in marriage - get rid of the seperate marriage tax laws, continue with the child credits- and voila- we have a system where marriage is defined by each couple as their own- not regulated by an inefficient and excessive bueracracy.

[Cringer]

time for another great flood to get rid of all this BS, hell it would probably even make the religious nuts happy....

[Pumpy Tudors]

I can't believe a Borat video started all of this. It's fucking BORAT.

[Kodos]

I didn't watch the video, if that makes you feel better.