What appals me is the benighted and narrow-minded, virtually superstitious attitude of those who cry doom at the thought that homosexuals would be acknowledged to have been: ". . . created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Alexander III of Macedon, the soi disant Alexander the Great was widely characterized as what we would call bi-sexual. Bi-sexuality was not simply common in ancient Egypt, but homosexual acts were treated as a rite of passage for the adolescent. If there were compulsion in either homosexual or heterosexual acts, i would condemn that, but only on the basis of violating the immunity of the young. Iulius Caesar was known to be bi-sexual--his legonaries used to sing about in public parades. Richard Coeur de Lion was homosexual, and one would have been well advised not have described him as a pansy to his face. Many other important people in history have had sexual proclivities which would be condemned by the narrow-minded, whether their motivation were religious or otherwise. Leonard da Vinci was homosexual, and the evidence is to be found in his journals. Petr Illyich Tchaikovsky was homosexual as well. Marginalizing an entire class of people is always a bad idea because of the waste of human potential. The United States was an industrual powerhouse in the Second World War because of the millions of women who joined the military or the work-force, ignoring prior stereotypes and imperatives of the "role models." Marginalizing African-Americans cost us how many G.W. Carvers, Sojourner Truths, W. E. B. Dubois'? Even in adversity and a repressive society, such men and women shine forth for their unique qualities, for their brilliance and their courage. Tchaikovsky took his own life, at the behest of his former university companions, when it became known "in society" that he was going to be prosecuted for sodomy. What does that say about the effect of religious superstition on "public morals," and what it costs us all?
California's Supreme Court has annulled around 4,000 gay marriages that took place in San Francisco.
The court ruled that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses earlier this year.
Thousands of same-sex couples were married in the city between 12 February and 11 March, when the court issued an injunction halting the wedding spree.
Gay marriage has become a key issue in the US.
link
Kaboom!
Quote:Tuesday, August 24, 2004 Posted: 10:02 PM EDT (0202 GMT)
DAVENPORT, Iowa (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday he believes the question of same-sex marriage is best handled by the states -- a position that puts him at odds with President Bush who proposed amending the Constitution to ban such unions
link
Quote:
Cheney, the father of two adult daughters -- one of whom is a lesbian -- was asked for his views on "homosexual marriage" during a campaign rally here.
"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with," Cheney said as he began to explain his view.
"With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody," said Cheney, who took the same stand during the 2000 presidential race.
"People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."
Cheney then spoke specifically about marriage.
"Historically, that's been a relationship that's been handled by the states," Cheney said. "States have made the basic fundamental decision [as to] what constitutes a marriage.
"I made clear four years ago when this question came up in my debate with [Sen.] Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide and that's how it ought best be handled."
Cheney described Bush's support for a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples as a response to a court decision in Massachusetts that opened the door to same-sex marriages.
But Cheney did not endorse Bush's point of view, even as he detailed it.
I may even have to post a pic of Mr. Cheney! :wink:
D'artagnan wrote:Actually, for once, I think McG might be on to something, though probably not for the right reason. The idea that letting gays marry somehow takes away something from straights marrying is, I think, silly, but...
Why should the state regulate marriage at all? Seems to me that's a religious rite. And religions can decide who they want to let marry.
What the state should regulate is civil union, and that would determine who gets the benefits that spouses are now entitled to. And those benefits should be the same for gays and straights.
The confusion here is that what the states sanction isn't religious marriage, it is, in effect, a civil union that is referred to as marriage. If it were indeed a religious rite, the state could not constitutionally be involved in putting its imprimatur on it. To illustrate, my brother was to marry a devout Colombian National. They decided to have the wedding in Bogotá but being on a student visa, Marta couldn't travel to Colombia and return. So what they did is obtain a civil marriage first. The marriage meant absolutely nothing to them except a means to obtain travel rights, they didn't live or sleep together or doing anything as husband and wife until they received the sacrament of marrriage. What the state calls a marriage and what a religion calls a marriage are completely exclusive of one another. For instance, the state doesn't tell couples that they must have the intention to pro-create in order to marry, that's a religious edict. (Catholic)
Everybody's idea of marriage is different. Some say that what mattters is two people love each other and commit to stay together "til death do us part." There are others who marry for money. Marriages used to be arrnaged for political reasons. Marriage doesn't really have to have anything to do with sex. What if two completely asexual people meet and fall in love and want to stay together for life? (same or opposite sex) What does it matter to anyone else what they do?
BTW I didn't vote in the poll.
I lied. I had to vote in order to see the results. McG inadvertently shot himself in the foot by trying to skew the poll by phrasing it unfairly. Based on the choices given, a mere 15% here oppose gay marriage!
I knew that you wouldn't be able to figure it out but that is exactly what your poll states based on the way you worded it. 15% oppose gay marriage, 23% support "full and equal" rights the rest express no opinion on gay marriage. Be careful how you word a poll.
What, exactly, do you believe I was polling?
You unwittingly composed a poll that resulted in only 15% of those participating stating that they opposed gay marriage. You inputted your bias into the poll questions therefore skewing it. But I can't beleive that your intent was to illustrate such a minority opposition to gay marriage but that is what you have done.
Wow. I find myself saying that about a lot of your posts.
My intenet was posted as a question above the poll. That you have found some hidden intent behind the poll is amazing.
"Would a civil union granting Homosexuals the same rights as marriage does for heterosexuals satisfy the homosexual community?"
It has nothing to do with what the population of A2K thinks about Gay marriage, I have been here long enough to have deduced that without needing a poll.
It has to do with what the population of A2K would be willing to accept in lieu of Gay marriage. As you have so obviously pointed out, 15% do not think Gay marriage should happen at all. 46% believe that it should be legal Gay marriage or nothing, and surprising to me, 26% say that a civil union granting equal rights would be acceptable.
I am not sure exactly what your problem is, but you are reading WAY more into this than you need to be.
If that's the case, you should have left these two choices out:
Give gays rights? NO WAY!
Equal rights for gays! Down with marriage!
----------------------------------
You, in effect, have proposed three different questions here. Adding the "down with marriage" caveat really confuses things.
No, because some people, obviously, feel that way.
Some people do not believe gays should be allowed to marry, while others believe that marriage should be done away with.
McG wrote: "and surprising to me, 26% say that a civil union granting equal rights would be acceptable. "
Why is this surprising ?
Gay people and other advocates of gay civil rights want equal rights. The salient point being that the rights have to be EQUAL, 100% EQUAL -- STATE TO STATE, AND FEDERAL. That's what they want (and deserve). Call it whatever you like, but it has to bring EXACTLY the same rights.
Which, of course, would be logistically impossible. as most of those rights are written into thousands of laws scattered throughout thousands of documents. And that is why gay rights advocates are fighting for gay "marriage" per se; the RIGHTS would apply to them via all those same laws and documents, without the impossible editing nightmare.
McGentrix wrote:No, because some people, obviously, feel that way.
Some people do not believe gays should be allowed to marry, while others believe that marriage should be done away with.
Then you should have seperated the question, einstein!
And some people believe that gays should be allowed to marry but otherwise that marriage be left intact
It's McG's poll. He can ask what he wants, and put the choices the way he wants.
If you don't like it, harper - set up another poll, arranged the way you want it.
well, well, well
not only can same sex partners get married here in Ontario - they can get divorced as well. Way to go, Judge Mesbur !
Judge Mesbur is related to one of our illustrious A2K posters!
The Canadians pretty much get it right, don't they?
