06-16-2004, 10:20 PM #1
Senate To Vote On Federal Marriage Amendment July 15
NOTE: If you have the option to do so, please add us to your 'buddy', 'accepted', 'approved' or 'trusted sender' list to ensure you continue to receive our messages. Thanks.
June 15, 2004 Senate To Vote On Federal Marriage Amendment July 15
Democrats Support Homosexual Marriage, Vow To Kill Amendment
Help send 1,000,000 letters of support for President Bush's efforts!
The U.S. Senate will vote on The Federal Marriage Amendment on or about July 15. I urge you to respond to the call of President Bush for support by helping send one million letters to the Senate. This will be the most letters ever received by the Senate on any issue.
Democratic leaders in the Senate, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschale and Senators Charles Schumer (NY), Barbara Boxer (CA), and Debbie Stabenow (MI) have promised homosexual leaders they will kill the amendment. Their action would allow one liberal, activist Federal judge to overturn all marriage laws and make homosexual marriage legal in all 50 states.
Some have referred to this as the most important vote in the history of our nation. If the homosexual activists and the Senate Democrats are successful, homosexual marriage will radically reshape our society. They will force acceptance of their lifestyle on the rest of society.
TIME FOR ACTION
Click here to send an e-mail to your Senators. This is very important. It is time for action if we want to keep marriage legal only between one man and one woman. Time is short. July 15 is the date for the vote.
We cannot secure those one million letters of support for President Bush without your help. PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO EVERY PERSON ON YOUR E-MAIL LIST. We must expand our base of support to reach our goal!
After forwarding to your e-mail list, please print this letter and distribute to your Sunday school class, church, clubs, etc. They can participate by visiting www.afa.net. Help secure the one million letters!
Thanks for responding to President Bush's call for support.
Send your letter today!
Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman
Marriage Under Fire: Why We MUST Win This War - Dr. James Dobson addresses the dire ramifications of judicial activism and presents compelling arguments against the legalization of homosexual unions—mobilizing the Christian community to respond to a call to action.
AFO Online - Filtered Internet service provider
Bsafe Online - Get protection against Internet pornography with the filter endorsed by the American Family Association.
Questions or comments about OneMillionMoms.com? Contact us via email, phone, fax, or postal mail.
American Family Association
107 Parkgate Dr. -- Tupelo, MS 38801
1-662-844-5036The answer to your every question
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
Why the Police will Kick your ass
06-16-2004, 10:23 PM #2Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
man **** it, might as well let them marry. It really ain't that big of a deal in my eyes
06-16-2004, 10:36 PM #3
06-16-2004, 10:50 PM #4
06-17-2004, 10:56 AM #5AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
well, then they will adopt children - then your kids will be taught in school that its just the same thing as your marriage - one generation and viola! all of civ turned on its head
now its interesting that in all of recorded history we do not find instances where the state legally sanctioned same sex marriage, equivocating it to any other form - but we have evolved so far and become so wise that we are the first sheer idiocy
06-17-2004, 10:57 AM #6
No ****.... NO ONE has been able to explain to me how this will ruin anyone else's marriage. You want to talk about ruining the sanctity of marriage... talk about J Lo and Britney Spears. THAT is degrading.
People that get all hot and bothered and want a Constitutional Ammendment for this simply blow my mind.
06-17-2004, 01:34 PM #7Originally Posted by CYCLEON
06-17-2004, 01:54 PM #8
BUMP for Cyc's response and Spy's thread.
06-17-2004, 06:05 PM #9
This is really stupid.
tens of millions of people get divorced every year, and these ya-hoos don't say diddly squat about the effect easy-divorces have on the institution of marriage. A few gays want to get married, and they go nuts.
They're going nuts because they are nuts, and they just simply hate gays. That's all it is. They hate gays. And they're using the power of the government to write laws against gays just the same as they wrote laws against blacks 75 years ago.
Bigotry, that's all it is, plain and simple.
Yah, more of these laws will probably pass through Congress, but your grandchildren will erase 'em, and wonder how cruel and stupid and bigoted y'all must have been to support such idiocy.
C'est la vie . . .
06-18-2004, 12:00 AM #10Originally Posted by Tock
06-18-2004, 09:26 AM #11AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
Originally Posted by navydevildoc
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
and tock (good to see you around again) we are not making legislation to discriminate - legislation is being forced upon us by activist judges to redefine a social institution - we are excersizing that democracy thing to try to fix this travesty - you know, where people actually have a say in what the law is... And getting married is not a RIGHT - the state as well as individual associations can chose to bestow legitimacy upon a union according to the desires of their members
and NOTE - LEGITIMACY is what this is all about. Gay couples want the government (and perhaps their selected religious group) to tell them that their behaviour is ok, meaning morally strait, as opposed to deviant - because no one is keeping them from their chosen behavior - its just that they want to feel better about it themselves and at the same time, brainwash the rest of society to agree with them - understandable from thier point of interest, but not desireable from societies point of view.
06-18-2004, 06:45 PM #12Originally Posted by CYCLEON
Sort of like the "activist judges" who ruled that "Seperate but equal" didn't cut it in schools and public accommodations, doing away with segregation, eh? Or the "activist judges" who ruled in 1963 that the government can not compel school students to pray Christian prayers in school (although some folks still say "They took God out of the classroom). Or the "activist judges" who ruled against things like "poll taxes" and other civil actions that kept certain "undesirables" from exercising their right to vote?
When elected officials don't have the guts to do the right thing (abide by the US Constitution), the courts sometimes have to step in and do it for them. Of course, when the judges rule FOR what you like, they're just doing their job. When they rule AGAINST what you like, they become "Activist Judges."
A rather unhappy double standard, if you ask me. An unhappy double standard even if you don't.
Originally Posted by CYCLEON
Of course marriage is not a right. It's a legal recognition of 2 people's relationship, which comes in handy for a variety of reasons. And there's no particular SECULAR reason why two guys shouldn't be treated EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW just like other folks (pardon my caps). Sure, it drives gay-hating Christians nuts, but geez, southern preachers in the Confederacy quoted from the Bible to justify slavery, too.
The upshot is, every citizen has the right to be treated EQUALLY under the law. Gays as well as those who wish they were . . .
Originally Posted by CYCLEON
That's their neurosis, not mine.
Originally Posted by CYCLEON
Gay couples want EQUAL TREATMENT under the law. Nothing else. No "special rights" that straights don't have. If anything, it is straight people who want to reserve "special rights" (the right to marry) for themselves.
Originally Posted by CYCLEON
EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW is all this is about. Years ago, folks freaked out over treating blacks as equals (lots of folks still don't). Before that, folks of different protestant sects beat up on each other, most everyone beat up on the catholics, and everyone beat up on the Jews. God help ya if you were (or even a suspected) witch.
Today's "boogie-man" are gay people, and Christians are the persecutors. History repeats itself . . . no telling who the boogie-men 100 years from now are going to be, but today's persecutors will be regarded as bona-fide lunatics; and the Christian persecution of today's gay people will further bring their beleifs into disrepute.
Sheesh . . .
I've been busy on getting a business going, that's why I've not been around much lately--there's a bit more to it than I anticipated . . .
So, y'all may as well make the best of my absence; let the anti-gay remarks flow, 'cause I won't have the time to answer 'em. Ya, you'll have to imagine how I might respond . . . and then argue with that.
You're on your own for the next while . . . will be back when things settle down (and I owe y'all results from a pressure-cooker experiment, but that's got to wait, too). So 'till then, take care and don't take any wooden nickels . . .
06-19-2004, 02:06 PM #13
i agree with cycleon about adopting kids and how tough they are gonna have it during school, taking sh*t from other kids about their parents being gay. But honestly, what is marriage gonna hurt them. A gay person can adopt a kid right now on their own, so what duz it matter if they have a little piece of paper saying they're married. I'd rather have most gay couples taking care of my kids than some of the parents in america today. IE--all the children growing up on welfare cause mommy can't keep her legs shut..........what duz that teach them, that you can phuck up and our gov't will give you more money. THe only ppl that hate gays are the ones who aren't sure of their own sexuality in my opinion.
06-19-2004, 02:11 PM #14Originally Posted by Tock
06-19-2004, 02:14 PM #15
forgot to add , the blacks dilemma is different than this ........... they were people as in of both sexes , didnt have rights , but this is pure crap ......... get the facts right only male and female copulation gives a new life ......... no man man copulation or female female copulation ! ........ thats mother nature , u wanna go against it , u need to be shot in the head !
06-19-2004, 02:50 PM #16Originally Posted by ZOAIB
Fine, then. We'll set aside the race issue, and go to the Religion issue.
Our "founding fathers" thought it appropriate to kill or banish people who didn't follow their own religion. People "choose" their religious opinions, just as I'm sure you beleive that people "choose" to be gay. If a mere choice like religious beleif can be protected by law, then sexual orientation can be as well.
06-19-2004, 02:54 PM #17Originally Posted by ZOAIB
If you worry about what 2 guys are doing in the privacy of their own bedroom together, then you need to get a life.
Shoot fags? Yeah, right.
06-19-2004, 03:17 PM #18
My issue with the gay marriage is how we will define marriage. Its not so much that I have a problem with gays getting married, its that marriage is a term for a man and a woman joining a union. Thats what it meant origanally in the Bible, where it came from. Its the concept. Once we call is a joining of 'persons,'where does it end? Why does it even have to be two persons? You could have polygamy. You could have incest. You could have marriage between a father and a daughter. You could have two widows, or two sisters or two brothers. Where do you draw the line?
I understand that a lot of gays want the right to marriage as it grants them certain legalities that they would otherwise not have access to, like less money spend on taxes as you and your spouse split income, etc. But if thats all that this is about, its a sham. Gays can love each other just as much as heteros can love each other (I think, I don't know personally), so why does it matter? If I couldn't marry the girl of my dreams, I could still love her just as much if I didn't marry her, I could still raise children with her, etc. If this is about getting tax cuts and discounted insurance rates, there is something terribly wrong with that logic. Its not right when people marry just for money, marriage should be about love.
06-19-2004, 03:58 PM #19
You have to have separation of church and state. The waters are getting muddy.
Marriage is one thing. Raising a child with a healthy male/female influence is completely out of this scope.
06-19-2004, 04:08 PM #20Retired Vet
Originally Posted by Money Boss Hustla
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
It will be hard for the kids with same-sex parents...in school...and in much they do outside of school as well...
06-19-2004, 04:53 PM #21AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
certainly I think that protecting the choice of people to engage in homosexual relationships is one thing and is desireable - endorsing such relationships via state sanction of marriage is quite another - shooting people who choose such things is an anathma to America's values...but so is encouraging them.
06-19-2004, 06:00 PM #22Originally Posted by CYCLEON
What is an anathma?
06-19-2004, 06:11 PM #23
Because there are financial benefits to marriages, gay couples should be allowed to partake of them. That's why i support gay marriage.
06-19-2004, 06:20 PM #24Originally Posted by Tock
06-19-2004, 06:23 PM #25
also bring me one example from any man or god created religion in the world where they accept homosexuality as a naturally occuring thing , this is a disease , and our humanity is in great danger with this perversion ! period .
06-19-2004, 06:34 PM #26Originally Posted by ZOAIB
Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name
By DINITIA SMITH
Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in
Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years
now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance
is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they
vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to
anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female
companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't
interested in them, either.
At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together
that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in
the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay.
Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things
went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a
chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised
Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she
could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise
"They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in
penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins
usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had
finished his dip and was up on the beach.
Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are
also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each
other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had
Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate
eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin
pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists
have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.
This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged
debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay
marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field
to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if
homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the
rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some
conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the
past, calling them "animalistic."
But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean
that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar
question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural
forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?
The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively
new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it,"
said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape"
(University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion
about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are
wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the
wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their
sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been
observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.
Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos
never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living
Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in
Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together,
and would say, `The females are very affectionate.' "
Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal
Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the
first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of
same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had
been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to
any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term
bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.)
Last summer the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association
and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the
Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging a Texas
anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law.
"Sexual Exuberance" was also cited in 2000 by gay rights groups opposed
to Ballot Measure 9, a proposed Oregon statute prohibiting teaching
about homosexuality or bisexuality in public schools. The measure lost.
In his book Mr. Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad
spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is
sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in
studies of animals in the wild.
Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of
female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual.
Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each
other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish
nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile
eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds,
too, may persist for years.
Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage
in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild.
Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves.
One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds
inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search
for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex
behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity.
Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit
homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to
each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips
at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow
the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex.
Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the
University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in
Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in
animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of
behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as
the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on
the topic was that "people don't want to do the research because they
don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality."
Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily
about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of
California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can
and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California
Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality
may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species.
By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or
nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene
pool," she said.
For Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown
University, who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, their
homosexuality "is about bond formation," she said, "not about being
sexual for life."
She said that studies showed that adult male dolphins formed long-term
********s, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to
entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they
share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male
cooperation is extremely important," Ms. Mann said. The homosexual
behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later,
crucial adult period, she added.
But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals
doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is
extraordinarily complex and variable," Mr. Bagemihl said. "We look at
animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted
that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support
for the nurture side as well." He cited as an example the ruff, a type
of Arctic sandpiper. There are four different classes of male ruffs,
each differing from the others genetically. The two that differ most
from each other are most similar in their homosexual behaviors.
Ms. Zuk said, "You have inclinations that are more or less supported
by our genes and in some environmental circumstances get expressed."
She used the analogy of right- or left-handedness, thought to be
genetically based. "But you can teach naturally left-handed children to
use their right hand," she pointed out.
Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For
some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't
natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's
natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."
But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump
from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using
animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human
societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I
don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down
Mr. Bagemihl is also wary of extrapolating. "In Nazi Germany, one very
common interpretation of homosexuality was that it was animalistic
behavior, subhuman," he said.
What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality
is a lot broader term than people want to think."
"You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned
Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate."
In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period
when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is
not necessarily about reproduction."
"Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why
are we surprised? People are animals."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Last edited by SV-1; 06-19-2004 at 06:45 PM.
06-20-2004, 01:05 AM #27
great post sv-1. Show the ignorant biggots what's what.
06-20-2004, 01:12 AM #28Originally Posted by SV-1
06-20-2004, 01:56 AM #29Originally Posted by ZOAIB
Bonobos, our closest living relatives engage in homosexual activity ALL THE TIME! Why don't you read about it.
06-20-2004, 03:20 AM #30
ahhh i say let em marry, its not like they are coming up to me and asking me to marry...
06-20-2004, 08:03 AM #31Originally Posted by SV-1
06-20-2004, 08:14 AM #32
oh yeah i also dont believe we evolved from monkeys , maybe that would illuminate my thinking about all of this to u !
science is only the understanding of our surrouding that we learned , keyword learned ! .......... from exploring our surroundings , these are signs of a great existence and beyond , and the complexity of this system shows a great intelligence , hence GOD exists .............. and only the last 70 yrs has man ever come to be so advanced , technology , as in that would be out of the last 100's n thousands of years man has been on this planet ! .......... and if these 70 yrs is gonna gie us an ego to equate our lives and denounce resonability with stupidity and engage in our lusts , well .............. then do it .............. death is only blink of an eye away , n they will find out what they r in for when they r NO MORE !
so there is nothing that u can display to change my OPINION bro ........ i just dont support homosexuality ! .......... even if there r some people who derive such nature , then they should have the decency to keep it on a ZIPPED LIP basis ........... giving them rights , to adopt and to marry scrutanize the mainstream of this world ............. and now the last thign u wanna see is a GAY president in the USA , which is not so far if this continues ! ......... plus wiht this act , they are gonna invite being targetted by the majority of normal ppl in this country anyways ............. beware of the redneck gay bashers ! seriosuly .
06-20-2004, 03:07 PM #33
*sigh* I knew it would be a complete waste of time.
Oh well, at least I tried. Bye.
06-20-2004, 06:57 PM #34
my dog humps my leg.....
my spider monkey humps my football....
i hump the sheets....
just for the record i don't think gay marriges should be reconignized by the state but i think they should have the same benefits of married people.....
what i don't understand is most the gay people i know are very educated....so why the hell are they wanting to get married??
06-20-2004, 07:31 PM #35
I'm laughing at this thread. No offense to anyone...but whether you believe in gay marriages or not...who cares? How the fvck does it affect you in your day to day life? It doesn't. If you don't like them...ignore them. If you do support them...ignore the people who don't.
Too many opinions in this world and everyone thinks theirs is right. I'm too busy too care what every person in this world is doing.
06-20-2004, 07:43 PM #36
LOL this thread is hilarious.
An amendment I'd like to see is one where the government no longer recognizes any kind of marriages at all--and marriage remains a private connection between two people recognized by whatever religion they may or may not practice. Everybody loves the state influencing their lives and controlling those around them until it does something they disagree with--
Some of you may remember a great man who once said, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
People don't choose their battles wise enough--the struggle here shouldn't be b/w the fundamentalist "moral" conservatives and the homosexual social liberals...the battle SHOULD always be between the people and the government! But nobody sees that...they just want Uncle Sam to legislate this...legislate that...laws to oppress others as long as they themselves aren't oppressed....at the cost of EVERYONE'S freedom.
Go LP! http://www.lp.org
Last edited by Hooligan; 06-20-2004 at 07:49 PM.
06-20-2004, 09:00 PM #37
Yeah I agree with protecting the nation's youth. If gays are allowed to marry, then all these little boys who cant get a girlfriend are going to think its okay to be a homo and turn gay. What if that happens to my kid? He'd definately be on the street when he's 18.
06-20-2004, 09:02 PM #38
i dont want gays to get married.. IMO being gay is wrong.. but i dont hate them i just believe its not the way we were meant to be
06-21-2004, 02:15 AM #39Originally Posted by AandF6969
Geez, nevermind "what if" that happens to your kid, what if that happens to you? Just becuase you're straight now don't mean you won't change . . . and then who's gonna protect all the little boys from your predatory fingers?
Ya, maybe we better zap ya before you turn homo . . .
06-21-2004, 02:22 AM #40
Natural or not, marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a religous institution that the government shouldnt be touching. I hate most of the republicans conservative views except this one, the military, taxes, and abortion.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)