One woman maintained that every gay man or lesbian woman were high flying flamers who were an embarrassment to the human race.
Another claimed that homosexuality doesnt bother her, but they should not be allowed to be official partners, not even civil unions. She doesnt think they should get the same rights as legally joined people because, and I quote "Marriage is a union of man and woman, and its biblical. Its just something you cant change."
The other woman was merely appalled when she found out I am related to a lesbian woman and it doesnt bother me. She even asked me if it made me mad.
You'd think in the military, where you travel and see so many different cultures, people would be a bit more receptive. 
Don't worry, they'll all have gay sons 
Ferrel!
Pvednes fucked around with this message on 10-22-2004 at 12:52 PM.
Guess they taught you some awesome discipline.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Delphi Aegis said:
Damn, Aza. If I heard that coming from anyone, I would have gone over and punched them in the fucking face.Guess they taught you some awesome discipline.
I was getting close. But I really dont wanna go to Mast.
I just left and went back to my desk and turned up my music.
quote:
Azakias attempted to be funny by writing:
Another claimed that homosexuality doesnt bother her, but they should not be allowed to be official partners, not even civil unions. She doesnt think they should get the same rights as legally joined people because, and I quote "Marriage is a union of man and woman, and its biblical. Its just something you cant change."
Ugh. I hate it when people try to argue this "point." Maybe I'm wrong, but here in America we have this thing that's called "separation between Church and State." I might be wrong though so don't hold me to it.
I guess she agrees with the Bible's view on Women's Rights as well. 
quote:
Alaan had this to say about Pirotess:
So can anyone really give anything even approaching a decent reason why homosexual mariage/civil union should be banned that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION?
from what i gather, the argument is that the text says "between a man in a women" on it somewhere. some states don't allow gay marriges. however, if you are married in one state you are married in all of them. so if a gay couple is married in mass, they are married in texas too. so the states that ban gay marriges feel like their state rights were violated because another state can "redefine a word" and overrule their own laws. at least that's the reasoning I'm given.
however... I just looked up the dictionary definition and...
quote:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
still, having the feds step in and take one state's side instead of an other seems like it would violate the minority state's rights under the same reasoning. maybe i heard it wrong.
Ferrel!
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Ferrel said:
I'm not certain but I do believe no state HAS to recongize a marriage from any other state. I think they do it as a courtesy. I'm not certain.
Nope. That is in the constitution.
quote:
Ferrel thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I'm not certain but I do believe no state HAS to recongize a marriage from any other state. I think they do it as a courtesy. I'm not certain.
That's the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in the Constitution. The same reason you don't have to stop and get a new driver's license everytime you go into a new state.
It would be interesting to see various state's Defense of Marriage-style laws go head-to-head with that in court. From a strict constructionist point view, since state laws can't override the federal constitution they'd lose and so, one state allowing gay marriage (or civil unions) would be enough to invoke "full faith and credit" and hence, open the floodgates.
