New Constitutional Amendment

[Oddjob0226]

Trying to put laws on biology never seems to do much good, in a general sense. There are laws saying blind people can't drive, etc... those kind of things do make sense, but to create a law stating that wheelchair people - who also make me feel uneasy - can't be teachers, or something like that, it just would seem kind of odd. I figure homos are that way biologically, or a infinitely complexity of biology and environment. Maybe even with reseach this condition could be prevented or "fixed", but quite frankly, if these people are working, voting, earning saving & spending money, staying out of legal trouble, and are capable of nurturing kids, and are even religious in many cases, maybe they do have their place and therefore should have some legal clout behind them to allow them fit fit is as normally as can be. Heck, when I was a little kid, black people scared me. Now that I've grown up and matured, it's EVERYbody that is out to get me.

As far as consentual incest and poligamy, laws against that are already on the books so those relationships can't be called a marriage. Much like many of the sodomy laws, they'd have to be repealed. But what would further prevent these relationships from being called a 'marriage' is just phrase an amendment with the words "2 people" rather than "a man and a woman" and that's where it will end. Until the poligamy & incest lobby starts getting powerful, but then, that's how the American system works, when enough people think a law needs to be made, changed or repealed, then it gets examined. Although, I think in some places 2nd cousins can still legally married; also, my sister and I could marry since we are not actually blood related. And she has a good job and is HOT, let me tell you, so well see what the future holds.......

 

[kis123]

Re: ok, replace average with "normal"

ok time to piss in all your beers again!
but what the hell, i'm already being called (oh horrors) a homophobic!
*gasp* will my reputation ever be the same?!?!
typical, you liberals always stoop to the name calling.

it's ok with me if you oh so sensitive liberal minded folks want to embrace homosexuality. no skin off my nose!
so why does it bother all of you so much that i don't? think about it ,why the name calling, the anger, the ganging up?

in other words (cause i'm sure i lost you) let me be a "homophob." in peace, and i'll let you be ass kissers in peace.. deal?

steve

It would be really great if we could just state our opinions intelligently without resorting to this. Steve already apologized for using the wrong words. It doesn't mean he's going to change his mind no matter what we write in this forum. He doesn't have to like the lifestlye. As a matter of fact, I don't like it either. However, my conclusions are different than Steve's as well as others who have posted their opinions on this topic. He has just as much a right to his opinions as everyone else and should not be swarmed on because he feels differently. I thought that's what the TMF is all about, being different yet able to freely express your feelings and views (tastefully and intelligently of course).

Can we get back to the original thread and learn to agree to disagree?

Can't we all just get along?😕

 

[MrMacphisto]

Steve... Name-calling, eh? queer, homo.... should I list out more? Those sound like names to me.

Anyway, it's time for me to piss in your beer. You know what they say about people that react this strongly against homosexuality. It makes you wonder if somebody's a closet case....

 

[kis123]

Steve... Name-calling, eh? queer, homo.... should I list out more? Those sound like names to me.

Anyway, it's time for me to piss in your beer. You know what they say about people that react this strongly against homosexuality. It makes you wonder if somebody's a closet case....

Naughty, naughty! Remember sticks and stones.....😎

As one of my high school teachers used to say:

"Play nice, don't fight"!

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: ok, replace average with "normal"

It would be really great if we could just state our opinions intelligently without resorting to this. Steve already apologized for using the wrong words. It doesn't mean he's going to change his mind no matter what we write in this forum. He doesn't have to like the lifestlye. As a matter of fact, I don't like it either. However, my conclusions are different than Steve's as well as others who have posted their opinions on this topic. He has just as much a right to his opinions as everyone else and should not be swarmed on because he feels differently. I thought that's what the TMF is all about, being different yet able to freely express your feelings and views (tastefully and intelligently of course).

Can we get back to the original thread and learn to agree to disagree?

Can't we all just get along?😕

Okay, so I lied. THIS is the most enlightened, educated, erudite and spectacular post I've seen to date. Well, maybe they tied. 😉

 

[ShadowTklr]

I don't quite agree that this point confines itself to homophobe Americans soley, but I do agree with the general gist.

You'll take note that my point does not confine the "general gist" to homophobes solely, but rather assigns homophobes to the confines of the general gist. There is a distinct difference.

The majority of ultra conservatives fall well into this generalization also, as you well point out in your post. Anyone who would deny equal protection under the law, or who would seek to disallow fellow citizens the same rights and benefits of the same free society in which they live, is a bigot. Political affiliations and religious denominations are nothing more than misdirection.

The threat to freedom lies within the hearts and minds of these such people, and not by the delusion that homosexual marriage will destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

Religion is the red herring that bigots use as a panty shield in order to justify their pathetic anti-humanitarian views and actions. So please, stop already with the "God said this, and Jesus meant that, and the bible really means so and so." The fact is if Jesus were alive today, half of you so-called conservatives would label him a raving liberal, have him imprisoned and crucified all over again. Then, when you found out what you'd done, you would simply fall back on the "it wasn't me" defense just like you do in the White House now.

 

[TicklishSinner]

i am AGAINST that crap of an amendment, the government shouldnt have the right to put guidlines on something like that!! I also beleive gays should be able to get married they are humans just like straight people

 

[BigJim]

You'll take note that my point does not confine the "general gist" to homophobes solely, but rather assigns homophobes to the confines of the general gist. There is a distinct difference.

Indeed there is. I agree with you totally.

Religion is the red herring that bigots use as a panty shield in order to justify their pathetic anti-humanitarian views and actions. So please, stop already with the "God said this, and Jesus meant that, and the bible really means so and so." The fact is if Jesus were alive today, half of you so-called conservatives would label him a raving liberal, have him imprisoned and crucified all over again. Then, when you found out what you'd done, you would simply fall back on the "it wasn't me" defense just like you do in the White House now.

Heh heh heh. That one cracked me up totally, because it's so utterly true. There's nothing that pisses people off more than having a few home truths chucked at them. Apparently Big J was a dab hand at making the buggers feel uncomfortable about themselves.

 

[ShadowTklr]

Apparently Big J was a dab hand at making the buggers feel uncomfortable about themselves.

Hey Jim, I love your speech mannerisms. There is something so refreshing to me about English slang that makes me wish I could use it myself. It just never has the same punchy value when spoken with a non-English accent. ROFL! BTW, What does a "dab hand" mean, anyway?

 

[BigJim]

Hey Jim, I love your speech mannerisms. There is something so refreshing to me about English slang that makes me wish I could use it myself. It just never has the same punchy value when spoken with a non-English accent. ROFL! BTW, What does a "dab hand" mean, anyway?

Watch Austin Powers films mate. Know worra mean? Cor blimey, strike a light guv'nor! Up the apples and pears and across the frog and toad for a cup of Rosy Lee! 😀

If you are a "dab hand" at something, it means you're very good at it. For instance I am a dab hand at punctuation and correcting Americans on their spelling, and Jesus was a dab handing at tipping over tables, raising the dead and hosting dinner parties. (Don't believe what they say about there only being bread and wine at the last supper, it's a bloody lie! The guy had proper caterers in you know! The Canaanite Cake Company does wonderful chocolate eclairs.)



n.b. "Big J"? Savior of mankind? Could it be? YES I am risen! I am de Lord of all. Bow and worship me, then you females queue up and presnt your bare feet for a tickli... err, baptismic ritual. 😀


Big Jim is here and he's gonna save yo asses!

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Steve... Name-calling, eh? queer, homo.... should I list out more? Those sound like names to me.

Anyway, it's time for me to piss in your beer. You know what they say about people that react this strongly against homosexuality. It makes you wonder if somebody's a closet case....

mrmacphisto. first, you'll be so kind as to return to my posts, and read again. you'll notice that where i use the term homo. i do it as a contraction. notice the positioning of the period. yes i used the terms fruit (guess you missed that one😛 ) and queer ,but i also appologised for that ,AND those terms were ment as being discriptive, not as a personal insult, as has been done here to me. you think you're so smart, but can't seem to grasp the difference, hmm, makes one wonder if you sir are a closet hypocrit?

as to my passionate (to you maybe, you should see me when i'm really on a roll😛 ) feelings toward homosexuality. i have gone into detail in other threads why i feel as i do, and am too bored to do it again in this one. but i will say, i wish you had done to you, what was done to me. then let's see how your feelings will be changed.

as to my possible homosexuality (rotflmao) ok tell you what, give me your sister, wife, girl friend, what ever, for a night, then you can ask them if i exhibited any homo. (notice the period?) inclinations.

steve

 

[inkling]

Proposed Constitutional Amendment Codifying Marriage Entirely on Biblical Principles

A suggested "Marriage Amendment" circulating on the Internet (author unknown) offers a version based on actual Bible verses:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28; II Samuel 3:2-5.)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13;I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Genesis 24:3; Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30)

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)


I read about another Biblical injunction allowing a rapist to marry his victim, but only if she cries out. (If she doesn't cry out, she is executed.) But I can't remember the book, chapter and verse.

 

[kis123]

Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment Codifying Marriage Entirely on Biblical Principles

A suggested "Marriage Amendment" circulating on the Internet (author unknown) offers a version based on actual Bible verses:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28; II Samuel 3:2-5.)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13;I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Genesis 24:3; Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30)

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)


I read about another Biblical injunction allowing a rapist to marry his victim, but only if she cries out. (If she doesn't cry out, she is executed.) But I can't remember the book, chapter and verse.

This is one of the main reasons why using the bible alone won't work. People have used the bible as a basis to justify many things, some good and some bad. There is stuff in the bible that I can only explain was par for the course of the time it was written. I mean we no longer are the agricultural society we were in that time anymore either. I never said I understood everything in the book.

Since when did this administration or any other one become so religious? I can give a myriad of examples when spirituality was not involved in their decision making process. This is just as stupid as the ones that are screaming the the movie "Passion of the Chirst" is anti-semitic. People have way too much time on their hands

If President Bush needs something to do with his time, he's spend it much more wisely trying to find way to end this stupid war, and get Americans back to work, not just pick on the homosexual community. As far as I'm concerned, it's merely a smokescreen to distract us from the hits his popularity has taken recently.

 

[BigJim]

Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendment Codifying Marriage Entirely on Biblical Principles

A suggested "Marriage Amendment" circulating on the Internet (author unknown) offers a version based on actual Bible verses:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28; II Samuel 3:2-5.)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13;I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Genesis 24:3; Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30)

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)


I read about another Biblical injunction allowing a rapist to marry his victim, but only if she cries out. (If she doesn't cry out, she is executed.) But I can't remember the book, chapter and verse.

This pretty much sums up why I don't believe the bible is in any way reliable as a moral compass for modern laws. All of the above carry equal weight to the idea of homosexuality being an "abomination". Why should these rules be any less valued by modern law? Why don't we still look down on a woman if she doesn't cry out when being raped? I'll tell you why; because they are a load of horseshit which were a true abmomination even when they were created.

 

[MrMacphisto]

but i will say, i wish you had done to you, what was done to me.

Hmmm... Do tell, Beetle Bailey...

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Hmmm... Do tell, Beetle Bailey...

at first i thought you were talking to me, since you quoted me. but then you named some other guy. gee, are you always this confused?

steve (note the name; s-t-e-v-e)

 

[the_Baron]

Okay. if i understand all these posts correctly, we are in agreement:

goats can marry kangaroos in 3 states; cuticle nippers can join in domestic partnership with staple guns, but not in texas or illinois; and the 5 cent gas tax is repealed.

i got what i wanted!

 

[BigJim]

I'm sure this will sound extremely patronising, but I've said it before and it wasn't taken as such; thus I'll say it again here.

I don't believe an entire group of people should be judged in a certain way or treated in a certain way, because of the dreadful actions of a minority of them. It doesn't matter if said group is homosexual men, Christians, Democrats, Republicans, Jews, Muslims or lesbians. To do such is understandable in some cases (told you I'd sound patronising 🙁), but it's still unfair discrimination whichever way you slice it.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Silly Steve... I was talking to Beetle Bailey, because I was trying to tell him what The Baron is talking about. Goats should be able to marry kangaroos in more than just 3 states.

 

[the_Baron]

in the words of reverand jim ignatowski (any taxi fans out there???),

"you quote me - you love me!"

 

[Deleted member 2452]

i'm leaving this thread

no i'm not taking my dishes and dollies and going home, i'm just bored with this thread. it has gone from a good debate to insults, jokes, taxes, and off topic levity, and childishness esp. from mrmcphisto.
don't think you've won anything, or run me off. i just see no point in continuing. what's left to be said?

steve

 

[Knox The Hatter]

"The majority of ultra conservatives fall well into this generalization also, as you well point out in your post. Anyone who would deny equal protection under the law, or who would seek to disallow fellow citizens the same rights and benefits of the same free society in which they live, is a bigot. Political affiliations and religious denominations are nothing more than misdirection.

The threat to freedom lies within the hearts and minds of these such people, and not by the delusion that homosexual marriage will destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

Religion is the red herring that bigots use as a panty shield in order to justify their pathetic anti-humanitarian views and actions. So please, stop already with the "God said this, and Jesus meant that, and the bible really means so and so." The fact is if Jesus were alive today, half of you so-called conservatives would label him a raving liberal, have him imprisoned and crucified all over again. Then, when you found out what you'd done, you would simply fall back on the "it wasn't me" defense just like you do in the White House now."

Yes! Beautiful. Could you imagine the look on Rumsfeld's face if he encountered Jesus in the breezeway outside his office, and was told of his shortcomings?
Could you imagine the look on Pat Robertson's face if Jesus stood in front of him and admonished him about his colossal arrogance and pride?
Could you imagine the look on Pat Buchanan's face if Jesus mentioned the scripture in Leviticus about how God instructs that the strangers within your borders are to be treated in a humane fashion? After all, it's on the following page from the scripture about homosexuality that the holy rollers never seem to tire of quoting.
I'm imagining the look on the face of the mother of one of my close friends, if Jesus suddenly appeared in her house in Elizabeth, to talk to her about her telling one of her sons last night that it would've been better if her children had been aborted. This from someone who crosses herself whenever anyone's watching, or swings around the Rosary beads like they were a pair of numbchucks. Christianity is Christianity. This woman, however, claims with a straight face to be a Christian. Sorry. Flunk! Unfortunately, I know too many people like this.

 

[Krokus]

I am STRONGLY against a constitutional amendment defining a marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and effectively banning gay marriages. I feel if we are truly the land of the free, we should practice that, and stop trying to remove citizens equal rights simply because their way of life, or their views, are different from our own. It's total and complete discrimination, and as an open minded and liberal nation, we should be ashamed of ourselves for even considering such a thing.


Mimi

Well said, Mimi, well said. I agree 100 percent.

 

[MrMacphisto]

the world's smallest violin is playing for you, Steve

 

[Ayla ny]

just a funny little antidote...

I haven’t been keeping up on this thread (no matter how strongly I feel about it) but thought this was worth sharing.

I play cards on a fairly regular basis with a few close friends. the core of the group just so happen to be a gay man (my sister’s ex-husband and one of my best friends), his ex-boyfriend, and a lesbian friend of ours (I’m glad Steve swore this thread off or this would just kill him!). anyhow, we decide the other night that our lesbian friend should marry my gay ex-brother-in-law. she would be covered by his health insurance, they would both benefit tax wise and it would fit into the legal definition of marriage (if this amendment were to pass).

this should alleviate any fears anyone might have of men deciding to marry each other for the tax/whatever breaks.