Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to DID BUSH GET HIS SECOND TERM BECAUSE WE ARE HOMOPHOBIC?
this is one of the best posts!
The bottom line is if a child molester or a murderer can get "married" (or any word that brings forth all the same public benefits as "marriage" does) than homosexuals should be entitled with the same rights. And to make this analogy is really a degradation to homosexuals, but sadly, that seems to be the only way to explain it to America. Another note on the first post talking about how it is homosexuals themselves want government's interference... well, is there any other way to get the same benefits without the government? Somehow it reminds me of how some people say "back then, there are no homosexuals." Odd analogy that's all there is. By the way, college is getting really expensive nowadays, and my fellow schoolers can't seem to find any jobs after graduation but with $30,000 debt under their belt.
Where are our jobs? Do we need a B.A. degree to work in MacDonald now?
Frankly, I don't care if you believe in God AND are a decent citizen that pays honest tax, how old does it have to get that church and state should be separated? I should make a t-shirt... or something.
I love your post.
posted by
bandanafish
on January 16, 2005 at 5:52 AM
| link to this | reply
barnabee
Interesting idea there. I wonder if it might work. If it became a part of an active religion it would then become a violence of religious freedom to deny such a thing. I love it.
posted by
kooka_lives
on January 10, 2005 at 4:05 PM
| link to this | reply
sarooster
First off you are very lucky then. Everyone I know has been told by their companies that raises are going down right now because the company can not afford to give as good of raises as they used to. One friend of mine got no raise at all last year, as neither did anyone who worked for the company because it was not in the budget and was the only way they could avoid having lay anyone off. Several friends have lost jobs due to the present state of the economy as well. Here in Colorado the unemployment has well over doubled in the last few years, which is something when not too long ago, back three, four years ago, before Bush came along, we had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. It was really kind of strange to see that pattern happen. Bush comes to power and our economy goes straight down hill. It is blindness if you believe that because you are doing just fine, that Bush is doing a good job. He has done nothing at all to stimulate the US economy, btu has helped out other countries to grow and his own backers to get richer.
If you do not believe that was the 'morals' that people were voting about, then what was it? Everyone already knows he lied, or if you wish to back him up, he spread 'misinformation' (If you really wish to be naive enough to believe such) to not only the people of the US, but the whole world, just so he could get a war started. Sorry, but that shows a great lack of morals.
I do not see the harm in the government recognize such unions. As I have pointed out several times in the a post it makes sense that we try to allow for homosexuals to feel they should try to have committed relationships and be given all the same legal rights as a heterosexual married couple. I care not what they call it if they wish to give it some other name than marriage, it should still hold all the same rights. The only reason given is many try to claim it to be immoral and will bring about the degradation of or society. Funny thing is the same thing was said when black and women were given equal rights. You have got to love the patterns that are very obviously there.
posted by
kooka_lives
on January 10, 2005 at 4:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Just My Understanding via reading, research, and insiders on both sides
From what I've read the Republicans did target certain swing states in two ways. They put the question regarding gay marriage on the ballot and then ran ads depicting Kerry as someone for gay marriage (that is not his position-- he's for civil unions and against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman). This got voters who were against gay marriage out to vote on that and they also voted for Bush. It was a way to mobilize people to vote for Bush by using a secondary issue. Carl Rove is being credited with this strategy.
It did work. Many of those red states in the middle of the country were targeted in this manner.
Good post.
barnabee
PS I don't really care either way regarding how marriage is defined. But quite honestly all one has to do is create a religion where gay marriage is one of the tenents. I don't know if you can then outlaw it. Gay marriage certainly doesn't bother me at all.
posted by
barnabee
on January 9, 2005 at 7:54 PM
| link to this | reply
I have nothing against homosexuals and I think they can live as they want.
But when they ask that their unions to be sanctioned by the government they are asking for government to step into their lives. They would be better off just living as they wanted. I can see where we need to provide benefits to same sex partners as far as employment goes. I know the companies my wife and I work for both do. I don't think homosexuality was a big moral issue in Bush's reelection. I am not a church goer but I am an honest decent person and I do believe in God. I voted for Bush becasue I think he and the Republicans will do a better job of running this country. My wife and I are much better off than four years ago. We have gotten raises and promotions and done quite well. We are still middle-class, but we are doing well. I thought this wqas the way for us to vote. I see problems with both parties though. I don't think homosexuality was that big a moral issue in the mix. I think having the same-sex marriage issue on the ballot brought people out to vote against that and most of those people probably voted for Bush, but people like that tend to vote anyway. So I don't think it was a big deal in the election. I just think our country is more conservative than most of us think.
posted by
sarooster
on January 9, 2005 at 4:54 PM
| link to this | reply