A constitutional amendment barring gay marriage!!

Holy jumpin Shocked

I thought I had heard it all.

Walks away scratching head...

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

kjvtrue pm me when you need help with the spelling of big words like liberal, heterosexual and mayonnaise.

I'm a sucker for an intellectual like yourself, especially a half naked one.

You forgot Marriagies Bear ;-)

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Some churches teach that homosexuality is an abomination. .

....................... Some churches are an abomination.

.

0 Replies

heteral?

0 Replies

I looked in the dictionary for "heteral". There are two words that are close.

Hederal : of or pertaining to ivy.

I am not sure if this is talking about a very entwined position, or about sex with plants. I am personally in favor of the former. The latter doesn't exite me, but to each his own.

Hetaera: An ancient Greek courtesan or concubine, especially one of a special class of cultivated female companions.

Mmmm... cultivated female companions sounds interesting. This sounds too good to not be illegal Wink

--------
"One Nation under cultivated companions!"

0 Replies

sozobe
Veteran Member

Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 8712

Posted: Tue 27 Jan, 2004 1:24 am Post: 536121 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would heterosexual marriage become illegal? The idea is that they BOTH would be legal.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I have read the Constitution. There is nothing in it that prohibits Homosexual Mariages.

You can read the Constitution here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Please show me what part you are talking about.

--------
"God under the Constitution"

The real Constitution wasn't written in 1993, like it says in that Web Site, but when the real one was written, there was no such, as Homosexual Marriages

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

kjvtrue pm me when you need help with the spelling of big words like liberal, heterosexual and mayonnaise.

That's mighty wide of you, BPB, but I don't think kjvtrue was trying to spell "mayonnaise."

Oh, wait, maybe "marriage" is a misspelling of "mayonnaise." So what she was really trying to say is that she is against legalizing homosexual mayonnaise.

Well, I never thought of it before, but that makes a lot of sense.

0 Replies

That's what I said all right, kvtrue. Still genuinely curious where you got the idea that legalizing same-sex marriages would somehow send heterals (seems vaguely mathematical to me) running for the border if they want to tie the knot.

0 Replies

Since gay dudes (I think that's the proper term now, isn't it? Gay dude?) -- since gay dudes are apparently the trend-setters of the world, don't we want them to get and stay married so that straight folk can find out how cool it is and try it themselves?

0 Replies

{snort!}

0 Replies

Love It, PD! Smile

0 Replies

kjvtrue wrote:

The real Constitution wasn't written in 1993, like it says in that Web Site, but when the real one was written, there was no such, as Homosexual Marriages

There was no such thing as interracial marriage either. Does that mean we need a constitutional amendmend against interracial marriage too? It appears to be a logical conclusion from your argument.

0 Replies

I see what you're saying, Thomas, but there was most definitely interracial marriage.

0 Replies

kjvtrue wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
I have read the Constitution. There is nothing in it that prohibits Homosexual Mariages.

You can read the Constitution here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Please show me what part you are talking about.

--------
"God under the Constitution"

The real Constitution wasn't written in 1993, like it says in that Web Site, but when the real one was written, there was no such, as Homosexual Marriages

You lost me there.

Which Constitution was written in 1993?

---------
"One Nation - Many Gods!"

0 Replies

This is one of those things that really makes me wonder where the rational comes from.

You have two people.
They are in love.
They want to dedicate their lives to one another.

Where's the problem?

Does all this come from the stigma that is attached to "sex"? Are they intimidated by the concept that two people of the same gender are actually 'getting off' on one another? Where does the personal choice of a law abiding individual, who is not breaking any laws or otherwise harming anyone become the buisness of the government of the United States?

The only compromise that I can think of that most people may agree to is to maybe not allow the actual term "marriage" to be used, stick to civil unions, but allow those who engage in civil unions to have access to ALL the legal rights and benefits that are alloted to people who are "married".

Regardless, stuff like this really makes it hard for me to see those who are so strongly opposed to it as being level headed and (for lack of a better term, and my apologies for insulting anyone)... intelligent?

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Since gay dudes (I think that's the proper term now, isn't it? Gay dude?) -- since gay dudes are apparently the trend-setters of the world, don't we want them to get and stay married so that straight folk can find out how cool it is and try it themselves?

"EWWE," that's Sick! This is why I'm against Homosexual Marriages, and rights, because it discriminate's Hederalsexuals. Their trying to this Nation Homosexual only.

0 Replies

while i voted "no" here (re: banning), i must add a caveat;

i think "all" marriage should be banned; so, i guess, that would include 'gay' attachments. (silly habit!)

On second thought perhaps we should ban only heterosexual liaisons, and solve the worlds 'overpopulation' crisis at the same time.

0 Replies

Heywood wrote:

This is one of those things that really makes me wonder where the rational comes from.

You have two people.
They are in love.
They want to dedicate their lives to one another.

Where's the problem?

Does all this come from the stigma that is attached to "sex"? Are they intimidated by the concept that two people of the same gender are actually 'getting off' on one another? Where does the personal choice of a law abiding individual, who is not breaking any laws or otherwise harming anyone become the buisness of the government of the United States?

The only compromise that I can think of that most people may agree to is to maybe not allow the actual term "marriage" to be used, stick to civil unions, but allow those who engage in civil unions to have access to ALL the legal rights and benefits that are alloted to people who are "married".

Regardless, stuff like this really makes it hard for me to see those who are so strongly opposed to it as being level headed and (for lack of a better term, and my apologies for insulting anyone)... intelligent?

How is Homosexual Marriage rational? It's not, it's sick, and disgraces the word marriage

0 Replies

I had a moment of clarity...let me share...

Marriage in the US is mainly a religious affair. Most religions in the US frown upon homosexuality. Right, wrong or otherwise that is the way it is. If the government were to step in and legalize homosexual marriage, they are telling the religious organizations (many of which support a rather large lobby) that they are wrong and that the 200+ year old government knows better than their 2000+ year old religion. Religious organizations would cause an uproar, and no matter what we here at A2K might believe, there are far more of "them" than there are of us.

Now, that being said, I would hate to see an amendment made to the constitution as I do not believe that the issue is deserving of such. BUT, I also believe that homosexuals should be happy with a civil service and not try to push into religion.

0 Replies

A constitutional amendment barring gay marriage!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know