Jeff Garcias Playmate Girlfriend

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='mongoloido' date='Jan 16 2005, 09:43 AM']So it's an insult to gays that is okay because you do it, and it's been done for a long time? Does that argument hold water for racists and antisemites?
Depends on what they call me. As long as they keep it personal, I'm ticked off, but not offended. If they get bigoted, then yes. I get pretty pissed.
I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that I have to be gay or friends with the insulted in order to feel offended. That would mean I also wouldn't have the right to be outraged at strangers on the street being called ni**ers because I am neither black, nor friends with them. Is that indeed your position?
[right][post="36111"][/post][/right][/quote]



Listen, I don`t call people gay, fag or homo. And I didn`t
in this or any thread. (Although I have called some threads gay
and I asked BZ if he could be gayer and say tee-hee rather than "snicker")
I out grew that in grade school. I call them morons, fuckheads,
ass jockeys or rump rangers.

And I don`t get offended when some1 says that a person likes a "rectum rocket"
either. If your skin is so thin that you can`t tolerate that then that`s on you.
Like I said before you have alot of rights but the right to NOT be offended
isn`t 1 of them.

I think BJ explained his self fine. Either accept it or be offended.
Like Captain Planet said ...........


[img]http://www.parnasas.com/PopArena/Articles/potato/planet.jpg[/img]

[Guest mongoloido]

I disagree completely (shocker). I believe that you should stand up for what you believe in. If you aren't willing to do that, you just don't believe in anything, do you?

Anyone who has the right to post, also has the right to be criticised for that post. I find his post in poor taste and have stated my beliefs without personal attack on BJ. I have attacked his post and I believe that is both acceptable and warrented. Your posts, on the other hand, have been far more disturbing than any picture posted here. Your logic doesn't hold water, and is in fact quite repulsive at times. Your football knowledge and opinions are quite impressive. However, that last bit you posted questioning my sexuality, friendships, and implying I shouldn't have a problem if I don't like the person is stunning. I never would have thought something like that would appear next to one of your posts. I read it and thought for sure you would edit it after a re-read. I gave you more than a day to do so.... I'm disappointed by that thought process. I thought better of you. BJ rides a line and I feel the absolute right to give a slap when I think a line has been crossed. You opened a whole new can of worms that eclipsed anything a bad joke could have created.

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='mongoloido' date='Jan 16 2005, 10:09 AM']I disagree completely (shocker). I believe that you should stand up for what you believe in. If you aren't willing to do that, you just don't believe in anything, do you?

Anyone who has the right to post, also has the right to be criticised for that post. I find his post in poor taste and have stated my beliefs without personal attack on BJ. I have attacked his post and I believe that is both acceptable and warrented. Your posts, on the other hand, have been far more disturbing than any picture posted here. Your logic doesn't hold water, and is in fact quite repulsive at times. Your football knowledge and opinions are quite impressive. However, that last bit you posted questioning my sexuality, friendships, and implying I shouldn't have a problem if I don't like the person is stunning. I never would have thought something like that would appear next to one of your posts. I read it and thought for sure you would edit it after a re-read. I gave you more than a day to do so.... I'm disappointed by that thought process. I thought better of you. BJ rides a line and I feel the absolute right to give a slap when I think a line has been crossed. You opened a whole new can of worms that eclipsed anything a bad joke could have created.
[right][post="36118"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



I have a friend that IS VERY homosexual that I have been friends
with for over 20 years and he has called ME the names that offend YOU.

The fact is I don`t believe people are BORN gay. People ARE born
Jewish, Black ect...that names are attached to that
are offensive and they can not help that. Gay people CHOOSE who they
love and have sex with. I think the claim of being "born that way"
is to gain acceptance because if they have no CHOICE then it "can`t"
be looked down upon by society in general and people HAVE to accept that.

Gay people are the same as people that CHOOSE to love some1
of a different race in my eyes.
I don`t hold prejudice towards either of them. But when you know that
the majority of society looks down upon that and you can be a victim
of bigotry for a CHOICE you made then I think that`s a little different
than being BORN a victim of bigotry. But to each his own.

[Guest mongoloido]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='Jan 16 2005, 12:42 PM']I have a friend that IS VERY homosexual that I have been friends
with for over 20 years and he has called ME the names that offend YOU.

The fact is I don`t believe people are BORN gay. People ARE born
Jewish, Black ect...that names are attached to that
are offensive and they can not help that. Gay people CHOOSE who they
love and have sex with. I think the claim of being "born that way"
is to gain acceptance because if they have no CHOICE then it "can`t"
be looked down upon by society in general and people HAVE to accept that.

Gay people are the same as people that CHOOSE to love some1
of a different race in my eyes.
I don`t hold prejudice towards either of them. But when you know that
the majority of society looks down upon that and you can be a victim
of bigotry for a CHOICE you made then I think that`s a little different
than being BORN a victim of bigotry. But to each his own.
[right][post="36128"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


You seem to be of the school of thought that anything one person can say to another is acceptable for you to say to others. I am not. African Americans are struggling to gain control of a concept that brutalized them for centuries by taking control of the words used. As a member of the ethnicity that did the brutalizing, I believe we have absolutely no right to use the words. We created the horror associated with the language. We do not have the power or the right to try to unhate the language. Homosexuals have been persecuted and ridiculed (not for nearly the same length or to the same degree) in much the same way. They are met with fear and loathing, insulted, pushed and punished, and placed in society's deviant closet. They want to seize the language and remove the ugliness too. Again, as a straight person who created the ugliness, I don't believe we have the right, or ability, to use the words in the same manner... That said, I don't believe either group of individuals will be successfull in removing the evil from the words. Continued use perpetuates the cycle, in my opinion.

As for the notion that homosexuality is a choice and not linked to genetics... Science seems to be punching holes in that argument just as they did with alcoholism a couple decades before. Alcoholics lack certain genetic traits that allow them to drink without creating a need for the alcohol. While true that some people manage to become addicted to alcohol without possessing the traditional genetic traits (perhaps choice or life altering experience is involved), the scientific evidence still shows that many, if not the overwhelming majority of alcoholics, are indeed born as such. Similar studies concerning homosexuality are showing results much along the same vein. It is becoming more and more probable that most homosexuals are indeed born that way. Of course, some are still steered in that direction by environment and experience. However, to say homosexuality is a choice just doesn't appear to be true.


Furthermore, none of that still explains how I must be gay or friends with the people insulted to have any right at being ticked off. Ugly is ugly, brother. I don't have to know any victims or persecuted individuals to feel for the tsunami carnage or African genocide. You can't win that angle.

[Guest oldschooler]

*sighs* :bored:


Listen Mongo. I am only prejudiced against 1 kind of
people.... ASSHOLES.
And they run in EVERY color, creed and sexual prefrence.

What I was saying it that Gays CHOOSE to be victims of bigotry
whereas Blacks, Jews ect are BORN victims.

And I will never buy into the "I`m born to be gay" thing.
If that`s the case then who`s to say that people aren`t "born"
to be pedophiles ? I know there is a difference because gays
are consenting adults. But doesn`t consenting mean something
you CHOOSE or AGREE to do ?

con·sent (kn-snt) KEY

intr.v.
con·sent·ed , con·sent·ing , con·sents
To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent.
Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.


Why yes it does. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/18.gif[/img]

[Guest BengalLady]

[quote]While true that some people manage to become addicted to alcohol without possessing the traditional genetic traits (perhaps choice or life altering experience is involved), the scientific evidence still shows that many, if not the overwhelming majority of alcoholics, are indeed born as such. Similar studies concerning homosexuality are showing results much along the same vein. It is becoming more and more probable that most homosexuals are indeed born that way. Of course, some are still steered in that direction by environment and experience.[/quote]

I agree with this whole heartedly though I believe that the ratio is 50:50. 50% of gay people do it by choice or something happened to them that made them scared of the opposite sex. And alot of people do it because it is kind of trendy now. But I truley believe that the other half were born that way. How do people explain a 5 or 6 yr old having homosexual tendencies?

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='bengalady' date='Jan 16 2005, 11:36 AM']I agree with this whole heartedly though I believe that the ratio is 50:50.  50% of gay people do it by choice or something happened to them that made them scared of the opposite sex.  And alot of people do it because it is kind of trendy now.  But I truley believe that the other half were born that way.  How do people explain a 5 or 6 yr old having homosexual tendencies?
[right][post="36153"][/post][/right][/quote]


It`s called curiosity. A 5year old doesn`t comprehend sex.
They don`t have the capacity to understand.
Dr Phil (yes I watch him ) had a woman that said her 4 and
5 year olds like to get naked together and "play". He said that
it is in no way sexual and that if she makes a big deal out of it
then it will be a big deal to them. But that she should tell them
that we have clothes for a reason and Mommy and Daddy don`t
take their clothes off for any reason but to take a bath. (lie)

anyway 99% of the lesbians I know have kids !

And how do you explain Bi-Sexuals ?

Anyway WOW we sure did get off subject from Garcia`s girlfriend.

[Guest mongoloido]

[quote name='sean' date='Jan 15 2005, 03:23 AM']Where were you during my gay marriage debates? I don't know where you stand I just assume. I could have used an ally.
[right][post="35901"][/post][/right][/quote]


Not sure I would have been any help. I'm pretty torn on the subject. I believe that gay couples should be able to enter into the same unions as straight couples. I believe those unions should entitle them to the same benefits and pitfalls of married couple also (insurance, medical decisions, divorce, etc...). The question seems to come from whether or not it should be called a marriage. That's where the whole issue gets really crazy. I don't personally have any problem with it being called a marriage (which would also solve some problems later), but I fully understand the difficulty religious people have with extending the term to include gays. As the concept of marriage tends to stem from religious beliefs, it should stand that the moral standing of the religion dictate the use of the term marriage. This would have me lean towards the concept of "civil union." Unfortunately, that makes it's own set of problems.

If civil union became the term, we suddenly have to terms for what should be the same arrangement. The trouble with that is that seperate but equal is a very tough concept to maintain. Sooner or later (probably sooner), one term becomes more equal than the other (little Animal Farm reference for you there ). What happens when marriage rights issues aren't treated exactly the same as civil union rights issues? What mess gets created when a company decides it's medical plan covers members of a marriage but not that of a civil union. How about adopting couples of civil union being second class to a married couple (what a nightmare scenario that would bring up)?

Ultimately, I guess I believe in gay marriage as the best solution. However, I understand the argument against using the term marriage... As the American people have spoken on the subject everywhere it was brought up in this election, I guess democracy has set forth the path for seperate but equal to be the only solution for gays.

[Guest mongoloido]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='Jan 16 2005, 01:43 PM']It`s called curiosity. A 5year old doesn`t comprehend sex.
They don`t have the capacity to understand.
Dr Phil (yes I watch him ) had a woman that said her 4 and
5 year olds like to get naked together and "play". He said that
it is in no way sexual and that if she makes a big deal out of it
then it will be a big deal to them. But that she should tell them
that we have clothes for a reason and Mommy and Daddy don`t
take their clothes off for any reason but to take a bath. (lie)

anyway 99% of the lesbians I know have kids !

And how do you explain Bi-Sexuals  ? 

Anyway WOW we sure did get off subject from Garcia`s girlfriend. 
[right][post="36156"][/post][/right][/quote]

Roger that. I'm pretty happy too. Models are a dime a dozen, but a good debate is tough to come by. I guess my response to Dr Phil would be to bring up some of my friends who simply prefered to play with their sister's dolls, or dress up in their mother's clothes as children. It surely wasn't about sex, but it does indicate a gender roll preference at a very young age. They may not have understood the sexuality of how they felt until puberty (I sure didn't understand all the naughty things girls could do with me til then ), but many of them always knew they were somehow different.

[Guest BengalLady]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='Jan 16 2005, 12:43 PM']It`s called curiosity. A 5year old doesn`t comprehend sex.
They don`t have the capacity to understand.
Dr Phil (yes I watch him ) had a woman that said her 4 and
5 year olds like to get naked together and "play". He said that
it is in no way sexual and that if she makes a big deal out of it
then it will be a big deal to them. But that she should tell them
that we have clothes for a reason and Mommy and Daddy don`t
take their clothes off for any reason but to take a bath. (lie)

anyway 99% of the lesbians I know have kids !

And how do you explain Bi-Sexuals  ? 

Anyway WOW we sure did get off subject from Garcia`s girlfriend. 
[right][post="36156"][/post][/right][/quote]

I understand the curiosity thing. I have kids and know how it works. And I also understand that there is curiosity, but I also remember being small and knowing how the experimentation made me feel. I did not understand it at the time, but I know that it was sexual.
I don't agree with everything that Dr. Phil says, though I do watch that show also and respect alot of his advice.
But I was mainly talking about the adults that speak of how they felt as children and they usually say they knew something was different from very early on.

Ok, 99% of lesbian friends have kids. How did that happen? They went with society and got married, or they just tolerated a man for the sole purpose of getting pregnant, or the majority of lesbians go to the spank bank.
That really has nothing to do with what they feel inside.

Bi-sexuals on the other hand, I feel is totally choice. I feel bi's are just very sexual people with strong sexual desires and it does not matter how they have them fullfilled.
I believe all women have lesbian tendencies, and it is in there nature. But men on the other hand seem to be more comfortable with the opposite sex.

But anyway, yes, this is way off topic.

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//33.gif[/img] Poor Garcia, he has a hot lady and she is willing to fight for him.

[sean]

[quote name='mongoloido' date='Jan 16 2005, 05:39 PM']Not sure I would have been any help. I'm pretty torn on the subject. I believe that gay couples should be able to enter into the same unions as straight couples. I believe those unions should entitle them to the same benefits and pitfalls of married couple also (insurance, medical decisions, divorce, etc...). The question seems to come from whether or not it should be called a marriage. That's where the whole issue gets really crazy. I don't personally have any problem with it being called a marriage (which would also solve some problems later), but I fully understand the difficulty religious people have with extending the term to include gays. As the concept of marriage tends to stem from religious beliefs, it should stand that the moral standing of the religion dictate the use of the term marriage. This would have me lean towards the concept of "civil union." Unfortunately, that makes it's own set of problems.

If civil union became the term, we suddenly have to terms for what should be the same arrangement. The trouble with that is that seperate but equal is a very tough concept to maintain. Sooner or later (probably sooner), one term becomes more equal than the other (little Animal Farm reference for you there ). What happens when marriage rights issues aren't treated exactly the same as civil union rights issues? What mess gets created when a company decides it's medical plan covers members of a marriage but not that of a civil union. How about adopting couples of civil union being second class to a married couple (what a nightmare scenario that would bring up)?

Ultimately, I guess I believe in gay marriage as the best solution. However, I understand the argument against using the term marriage... As the American people have spoken on the subject everywhere it was brought up in this election, I guess democracy has set forth the path for seperate but equal to be the only solution for gays.
[right][post="36157"][/post][/right][/quote]


I can understand a religious stance against it. What I can't understand are people that are of the opinion that if they let men marry, where does it stop. Men marrying animals? Pedophiles having rights? Neither of these involve consenting adults and the argument makes me sick.
If they want to use two terms that's fine as long as the same rights are given to each.
Do the bans on gay marriage, still allow "unions" by the justice of the peace? That has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with legality.

The American people suck ass!!!

[|Bunghole|]

I love this place! It is amazing the digressions that are spawned that have little or nothing to do with the original post.
It is cool that all the personalities here can be "felt" through the power of the written word.
We certainly are a diverse cross-section of human beings on this board, and for some of us, the ONLY thing that we have in common is that we're Bengal fans (purportedly anyway).
Now if I could get more of you join the ranks of the Kentucky Wildcat faithful...
OK, it ain't gonna happen.

[BengalsCat]

Fuck jeff garcia.. FUck being PC... JEffi is a flamin faggot.. ut ohh said the fword..... someone better sue me.... cause there affended..... ohh no FREEDOM of SPeach gives me the right to say what i want regardless of who it affends.. point blank and period and if u dont like it u just shove it ur lil gay/homo/pink/fairy behind...... why would u try to censor someome in this country we were built on saying what we want to say.. so fuck it be offended....

[|Bunghole|]

WOW!
Like, wow Cat.
I'm going to send you some pamphlets on etiquette and some soap to wash out that potty mouth... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='mongoloido' date='Jan 16 2005, 06:44 PM']Roger that. I'm pretty happy too. Models are a dime a dozen, but a good debate is tough to come by. I guess my response to Dr Phil would be to bring up some of my friends who simply prefered to play with their sister's dolls, or dress up in their mother's clothes as children. It surely wasn't about sex, but it does indicate a gender roll preference at a very young age. They may not have understood the sexuality of how they felt until puberty (I sure didn't understand all the naughty things girls could do with me til then  ), but many of them always knew they were somehow different.
[right][post="36160"][/post][/right][/quote]

Bullshit i will admit it i played with barbies as a child.. does that make me gay hell nah got a very nice gf and we are very active... playing is just that playing u dont have to turn it into some kind of gender defining role....

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='StevieG' date='Jan 18 2005, 01:16 PM']WOW!
Like, wow Cat.
I'm going to send you some pamphlets on etiquette and some soap to wash out that potty mouth... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]   [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]
[right][post="36596"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Sry man i dont believe in sensor ship at all... esp with the whole pc thing.. Why should i change the way i speak... its publicly aproved brainwashing to limit your words and feelings to things we consider within the norm........ ohh btw Homosexuality is not a norm.. it is still a vast majority and if we were born this way why dont other animals show the same tendisy to be homosexual?? I personaly think this is a bad fad.. people think its trendy esp in the metropolitant areas.......

[BengalsCat]

Making The Case For A Federal Marriage Amendment
by John Hawkins
Margaret Thatcher once wrote,

"Whether it is in the United States or in mainland Europe, written constitutions have one great weakness. That is that they contain the potential to have judges take decisions which should properly be made by Democratically elected politicians."

Today, that "great weakness" is being exploited by gay advocates and judicial activists who are attempting to radically alter the definition of marriage. Just as Justice Scalia predicted in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, courts in Massachusetts and a mayor in San Francisco with the tacit approval of liberal judges, are defying the will of the voters and imposing gay marriage by fiat.

One could make the case that per the First Amendment, the government has absolutely no right to fundamentally alter the definition of a religious ceremony to begin with. But since that argument has little chance of succeeding in an age where the government outstripping the powers given to it by the Constitution is the rule, not the exception, I think it's worth pointing out that state legislatures & voters, not imperious judges or a mayor acting like the head of a banana republic, should be the ones to make this sort of momentous decision.

Since that is the reality we face, I think Bush's decision to pursue a Constitutional Amendment to preserve marriage is the right one because this issue is not going away. Given the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, it's entirely possible that we're one SCOTUS decision away from having marriage irrevocably transformed, no matter what the American people believe or desire.

Despite the situation we're in, some people who are against gay marriage will assert that a Constitutional Amendment is the wrong way to address this issue. But, we must deal with things as they are, not as we wish them to be. If our choices are either to allow the courts to impose an iconoclastic change to the institution of marriage or to amend the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the vast majority of the American people, and those do appear to be our choices, then the latter is without question preferable.

But of course, the debate is not just about the "how," it's about "why"? Why should President Bush attempt to push through a Constitutional Amendment that will block gay marriages? Well, let's be honest here, this isn't JUST about gay marriage. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, polygamy and marriages between adult members of the same family are not going to be far behind. In fact, because of historical precedence, I believe you can actually make a better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. Many people will deny that, but throughout the years, as we've slid further and further down the slippery slope towards gay marriage, the obvious truth about what was happening was always staunchly denied by most of the liberal establishment. So what of it some people may say? If two men want to marry, a man wants 10 wives, or if an adopted brother and sister want to be joined together in holy matrimony, what's the problem with that?

I think for Christians, "it's against my religion" would be an entirely appropriate response. However, while that response may be appropriate, it does not sufficiently convey the scope of the problem presented by gay marriage.

We must remember that marriage is the bedrock upon which not only our society, but societies across the world are founded. Men and women, bound together through marriage, working as a team to raise their children, have proven absolutely essential to the success of our nation. This becomes obvious when we ponder the price our society has paid for allowing the institution of marriage to be weakened in the past. Poverty, surging crime rates, drug abuse, violence, and the mental anguish often suffered by illegitimate children or kids who go through a divorce have cost our society dearly and will continue to do so. When one considers the horrific cost of illegitimacy and divorce to our society, the rational response would be to try to strengthen the institution of marriage. But instead, we're talking about making subversive changes that will quite likely have a devastating negative impact on our society down the road.

There are of course those who scoff at that notion and in one sense, they have a point. I sincerely doubt if you're going to see a lot of long lasting, stable, marriages break-up if the definition of marriage is altered. However, as marriage continues to lose its "specialness," as it changes from a sacred, once in a lifetime event that little girls start planning from the time they're young, to just something the government makes you do if you want benefits at work, less people will bother to get married. You simply cannot fundamentally metamorphose a tradition more than a millenia old in the courts without producing this effect.

Moreover, the attempts by advocates of gay marriage to denigrate the institution as it exists today are not only callow & colossally arrogant, they are quite telling. If someone wants to make the case that everyone from Jesus, to George Washington, to practically every American who ever lived up until say 20 years ago, is a racist, bigot, pig because they believed marriage is between a man and woman, so be it. But, everyone from polygamists, to adults engaged in incest, to even those who want to marry the dead, could effectively make the same claim using that sort of logic. So why go down that road? Because we're talking about myopic people who are more concerned with getting their way than the consequences of their actions. If trashing the institution of marriage is the price of getting their way, that's a price they're willing to pay.

In any case, Americans who believe it's essential to preserve marriage have to decide whether they're going to support a Constitutional Amendment or whether they're going to stand by and allow the definition of marriage to be arbitrarily changed by our judiciary. That's a decision that each person will have to make individually. But, before you decide which way you're going to come down on this issue, ask yourself an important question; if marriage isn't worth fighting for with every tool the US Constitution provides to us, then what is?
Just alil food for thought on gay marriage since we are also talking about that

[|Bunghole|]

I was joking...you can say whatever you want, it certainly won't offend me.
The only time I watch what I say is when I'm at work, around my parents (or someone else's) and at church.
I played with Barbies too, when I was little. Barbie served as my "damsel in distress" so Han Solo and his/my Millenium Falcon could save her from evil Darth Vader. I incorporated her into my Star Wars toys since I didn't want a Princess Leia figurine...and I am NO homosexual, although I don't have any type of problem with gay people...they're just people.
Diffrent Strokes...and no, not the TV show...so don't ask what I'm talking about...and I ain't Willis...

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='StevieG' date='Jan 18 2005, 01:37 PM']I was joking...you can say whatever you want, it certainly won't offend me.
The only time I watch what I say is when I'm at work, around my parents (or someone else's) and at church.
I played with Barbies too, when I was little.  Barbie served as my "damsel in distress" so Han Solo and his/my Millenium Falcon could save her from evil Darth Vader.  I incorporated her into my Star Wars toys since I didn't want a Princess Leia figurine...and I am NO homosexual, although I don't have any type of problem with gay people...they're just people.
Diffrent Strokes...and no, not the TV show...so don't ask what I'm talking about...and I ain't Willis...
[right][post="36607"][/post][/right][/quote]

although I don't have any type of problem with gay people

yeah i def agree with that.. i dont have a problem with gay people at all..... it all just goes back to cencorship

[|Bunghole|]

How in the hell am I supposed to post-whore and hog all the threads with you always around?
Tryin' to get to 2,000 posts...I hear something magical happens to your PC.
Stop interfering with my quest, errant knave!
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

[sean]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='Jan 18 2005, 12:33 PM']Making The Case For A Federal Marriage Amendment
by John Hawkins
Margaret Thatcher once wrote,

"Whether it is in the United States or in mainland Europe, written constitutions have one great weakness. That is that they contain the potential to have judges take decisions which should properly be made by Democratically elected politicians."

Today, that "great weakness" is being exploited by gay advocates and judicial activists who are attempting to radically alter the definition of marriage. Just as Justice Scalia predicted in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, courts in Massachusetts and a mayor in San Francisco with the tacit approval of liberal judges, are defying the will of the voters and imposing gay marriage by fiat.

One could make the case that per the First Amendment, the government has absolutely no right to fundamentally alter the definition of a religious ceremony to begin with. But since that argument has little chance of succeeding in an age where the government outstripping the powers given to it by the Constitution is the rule, not the exception, I think it's worth pointing out that state legislatures & voters, not imperious judges or a mayor acting like the head of a banana republic, should be the ones to make this sort of momentous decision.

Since that is the reality we face, I think Bush's decision to pursue a Constitutional Amendment to preserve marriage is the right one because this issue is not going away. Given the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, it's entirely possible that we're one SCOTUS decision away from having marriage irrevocably transformed, no matter what the American people believe or desire.

Despite the situation we're in, some people who are against gay marriage will assert that a Constitutional Amendment is the wrong way to address this issue. But, we must deal with things as they are, not as we wish them to be. If our choices are either to allow the courts to impose an iconoclastic change to the institution of marriage or to amend the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the vast majority of the American people, and those do appear to be our choices, then the latter is without question preferable.

But of course, the debate is not just about the "how," it's about "why"? Why should President Bush attempt to push through a Constitutional Amendment that will block gay marriages? Well, let's be honest here, this isn't JUST about gay marriage. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, polygamy and marriages between adult members of the same family are not going to be far behind. In fact, because of historical precedence, I believe you can actually make a better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. Many people will deny that, but throughout the years, as we've slid further and further down the slippery slope towards gay marriage, the obvious truth about what was happening was always staunchly denied by most of the liberal establishment. So what of it some people may say? If two men want to marry, a man wants 10 wives, or if an adopted brother and sister want to be joined together in holy matrimony, what's the problem with that?

I think for Christians, "it's against my religion" would be an entirely appropriate response. However, while that response may be appropriate, it does not sufficiently convey the scope of the problem presented by gay marriage.

We must remember that marriage is the bedrock upon which not only our society, but societies across the world are founded. Men and women, bound together through marriage, working as a team to raise their children, have proven absolutely essential to the success of our nation. This becomes obvious when we ponder the price our society has paid for allowing the institution of marriage to be weakened in the past. Poverty, surging crime rates, drug abuse, violence, and the mental anguish often suffered by illegitimate children or kids who go through a divorce have cost our society dearly and will continue to do so. When one considers the horrific cost of illegitimacy and divorce to our society, the rational response would be to try to strengthen the institution of marriage. But instead, we're talking about making subversive changes that will quite likely have a devastating negative impact on our society down the road.

There are of course those who scoff at that notion and in one sense, they have a point. I sincerely doubt if you're going to see a lot of long lasting, stable, marriages break-up if the definition of marriage is altered. However, as marriage continues to lose its "specialness," as it changes from a sacred, once in a lifetime event that little girls start planning from the time they're young, to just something the government makes you do if you want benefits at work, less people will bother to get married. You simply cannot fundamentally metamorphose a tradition more than a millenia old in the courts without producing this effect.

Moreover, the attempts by advocates of gay marriage to denigrate the institution as it exists today are not only callow & colossally arrogant, they are quite telling. If someone wants to make the case that everyone from Jesus, to George Washington, to practically every American who ever lived up until say 20 years ago, is a racist, bigot, pig because they believed marriage is between a man and woman, so be it. But, everyone from polygamists, to adults engaged in incest, to even those who want to marry the dead, could effectively make the same claim using that sort of logic. So why go down that road? Because we're talking about myopic people who are more concerned with getting their way than the consequences of their actions. If trashing the institution of marriage is the price of getting their way, that's a price they're willing to pay.

In any case, Americans who believe it's essential to preserve marriage have to decide whether they're going to support a Constitutional Amendment or whether they're going to stand by and allow the definition of marriage to be arbitrarily changed by our judiciary. That's a decision that each person will have to make individually. But, before you decide which way you're going to come down on this issue, ask yourself an important question; if marriage isn't worth fighting for with every tool the US Constitution provides to us, then what is?
Just alil food for thought on gay marriage since we are also talking about that
[right][post="36602"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


The definition of marriage has already been destroyed by divorce. Marriage isn't the institution it used to be. You could compare it to "getting pinned" or "going steady" in the past...a serious commitment, but not too serious. With over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, how can these people pretend that marriage is sacred? Children are destroyed and lives are ruined by divorce, yet these people still want to act morally superior. How many gay marriages would be forced because of pregnancy? How many gay marriages that end will leave children in the wake?
Gay people should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us. We're all morally bankrupt it seems.

[Jamie_B]

I cant believe this is still going, look my entire point to begin with in the other thread was that I have every right to vote based in my religious beliefs. The law says so.... Separation of Church and state says and I quote

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Now if you don’t understand this quote let me dumb it down for you, it means that congress is not allowed to make laws saying that the Unites States is to have a "Church of the United States". NOT NOT NOT NOT (and I can’t stress this enough) That all religious doctrine is to be taken out of government and or the rights of the people to choose their leaders based on their religious convictions.

Here is a very good article about the myth of separation of church and state that I have posted before... [url="http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html"]http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html[/url]

As far as the whole argument is concerned. Romans 3:23 says and I quote "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

This means me, this means you, this means gay people, this means straight people.

To me the argument isn’t about gay or straight, it’s about my values being protected under the law and the subtle yet systematic attempt to make the country completely secular.

When I see things like the words "Under God" being taken out of the pledge or when I see people attempting law suits to prevent the president from having a prayer at his inaugural address or this marriage issue, I see a secular world attempting to de-Christianize (for lack of a better word) a country that was founded on Christian principles and it bothers me and as a voter I have EVERY right to make my voice heard at the polls, the law says so.

So far as I’m concerned the attempted removal of all things Christian or otherwise (I have no issue with other faiths being shown the same respect mine is), is no different than when Hitler attempted to remove the Jews or when maliosavich (sp?) attempted his ethnic cleansing. This "cleansing" is just more subtle and done thought lawsuits rather than brute force.

YOU made this about gay, I was speaking on a grander scale.

[BengalsCat]

Yeah it bothers me to.. doesnt what they are doing count a persicution?? but i guess not since we are the majority

[sean]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jan 18 2005, 01:46 PM']I cant believe this is still going, look my entire point to begin with in the other thread was that I have every right to vote based in my religious beliefs. The law says so.... Separation of Church and state says and I quote

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Now if you don’t understand this quote let me dumb it down for you, it means that congress is not allowed to make laws saying that the Unites States is to have a "Church of the United States". NOT NOT NOT NOT (and I can’t stress this enough) That all religious doctrine is to be taken out of government and or the rights of the people to choose their leaders based on their religious convictions.

Here is a very good article about the myth of separation of church and state that I have posted before... [url="http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html"]http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html[/url]

As far as the whole argument is concerned. Romans 3:23 says and I quote "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

This means me, this means you, this means gay people, this means straight people.

To me the argument isn’t about gay or straight, it’s about my values being protected under the law and the subtle yet systematic attempt to make the country completely secular.

When I see things like the words "Under God" being taken out of the pledge or when I see people attempting law suits to prevent the president from having a prayer at his inaugural address or this marriage issue, I see a secular world attempting to de-Christianize (for lack of a better word) a country that was founded on Christian principles and it bothers me and as a voter I have EVERY right to make my voice heard at the polls, the law says so.

So far as I’m concerned the attempted removal of all things Christian or otherwise (I have no issue with other faiths being shown the same respect mine is), is no different than when Hitler attempted to remove the Jews or when maliosavich (sp?) attempted his ethnic cleansing. This "cleansing" is just more subtle and done thought lawsuits rather than brute force.

YOU made this about gay, I was speaking on a grander scale.
[right][post="36639"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

THIS thread is all about gay.

The ban on gay marriage is about the legality of using the term. It has nothing to do with religion. I think gay marriage should be recognized legally by the government not by the church. Whether the church recognizes it or not is up to them. Just like it's up to the individual to decide how they feel. With the ban on gay marriage the people have spoken........and they are wrong!

[Jamie_B]

Ill end my point with this quote from a very famous hindu leader (and Im not hindu, how bout that???)

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is. "
Mohandas Gandhi