Op/Ed : Ohio's ban on gay marriage : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

Hey, what better way to split the Democratic vote than to force the issue of gay marriage in an election year! really, every homophobe in this country (many of whome are democrats) is going to sympathise with the republicans about "defending marriage" and whatnot. not that this could even BE and issue in an intelligent country, it's so obviously a question for the church and not the state.

but hey, black republicans rejoice! a chance to finally attract some black votes. watch in awe as democratic nominees try to woo the blue collar/working class while defend the rights of gay people. see voters scramble to the right in an attempt to distance themselves from the gay-lovers. all over an issue that shouldn't even be an issue.

my hat goes off to the republican re-election campaigners. all that's left is for ronald reagan to die spinning the media into the traditional role of showering accolades on the great old leader and his legacy (that is, the Bush clan). phenomenal.

As a relatively straight male living in Ohio, I find it horribly damning to be associated with the fundamentalist Right that has controls state government. When will people grow up and realizes the consensual sex has nothing to do with anyone but those engaged in it.

I mean, com'on..... how weak and flimsy is *your* marriage if two men or two women getting married scares the bejeezus out of you?

Join the civilized world, Ohio.

Rally in Columbus, 2/21

In response to the legislature of Ohio recently passing the Defense of Marriage Act, which not only defines marriage as between "one man and one woman" but is also one of only two states that explicitly prohibits domestic partnership benefits for unmarried and same-gender/sex relationships, the Ohio Students For Equality Coalition has planned a rally to be held in Columbus, Ohio in February.

The Coalition feels that the recently passed DOMA (HB 272) not only discriminates against those unmarried couples in heterosexual relationships but also explicitly dehumanizes and discriminates those in same-gender/sex relationships by expressing "strong public sentiments to discourage" same-gender/sex relationships via marriage in the state of Ohio.

Furthering unsettlement is the ability for this bill to prohibit same-gender/sex relationships and unmarried couples to gain domestic partner benefits in the state of Ohio - which would include rights accorded to heterosexual couples such as health insurance and bereavement recognition at places of employment. The Coalition feels that this bill sends a strong message to those inside and outside of the state that Ohio endorses discrimination and heterosexism. It is also the belief that DOMA would encourage hate and bigotry to the GLBTQI community.

In an attempt to encourage an appeal and the installation of equality and recognition of human rights and on-discrimination in the state of Ohio, the Rally is scheduled for February 21, 2004 (Saturday) from 12:30-2pm on the West Plaza in Columbus, Ohio. Attendance is open to all people who seek justice, equality, and the alleviation of discrimination and oppression for all peoples. For more information please contact

I found this on the A.P. It is simply amazing how these guys change their tune during an election year. Bush may not be perfect but John Kerry is hardly a solution...

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, who opposes gay marriage and hints he might support a limited ban, just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials.

And when Kerry opposed federal legislation in 1996 that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he compared the law to 1960s efforts in the South to criminalize interracial marriages and accused his supporters of engaging in the "politics of division."

"This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited bill," Kerry declared then even as 85 senators and President Clinton supported the measure.

As his home state grapples with a historical Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that could permit homosexual marriages, Kerry's own comments on the campaign trail are being compared by Republicans, Democratic rivals and even his own constituents to his prior record.

Kerry's campaign said Wednesday he has consistently opposed gay marriage while also rejecting legislation, like the 2002 amendment, that he believed jeopardized the civil rights of gays.

"John Kerry's position has been crystal clear. He opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts in the summer of 2002 because a sweeping proposal would have threatened civil unions, health benefits, or inheritance rights for gay couples that represent equal protection under the law," spokesman David Wade said.

"John favors civil unions, not gay marriage. It's that simple," he said.

The emergence of gay marriage as an issue has placed several candidates -- including Howard Dean who signed a civil-unions bill during his Vermont governorship -- in a delicate balancing act of trying to avoid looking bigoted while placating heterosexual and religious voters.

Kerry has left open the possibility he could support a Massachusetts ban on gay marriage if it recognized civil unions and other protections as an alternative. But in 2002, he joined his congressional colleagues in opposing Massachusetts' last effort to outlaw gay marriage.

The letter, organized by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., was sent on congressional stationery on July 12, 2002 as the Massachusetts legislature first considered a constitutional amendment that limited marriage to "only the union of one man and one woman."

"We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents," Kerry and 11 other members of the state's congressional delegation wrote.

The legislature's 2002 effort failed, but that debate renewed in the last week after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled gays were entitled to the same marriage as heterosexuals unless the state constitution is changed. Lawmakers debated a possible amendment again Wednesday.

Frank and most of the other congressmen who signed the 2002 letter sent a new letter last month again opposing the constitutional amendment, but this time neither Kerry nor Sen. Edward Kennedy signed.

Frank said Wednesday he didn't ask Kerry or Kennedy to sign this time "because I was in such a hurry," the openly gay congressman said.

Frank said Kerry has always been clear to him that he opposes gay marriage but wants homosexuals to have equal protection under the law through civil unions, and other legislation.

Kerry has said that he believes marriage -- both legally and religiously -- should be reserved between a man and woman.

"I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples -- from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision," Kerry said last week after the court ruling.

When asked whether he might support Massachusetts' constitutional amendment, he said it was possible.

"It depends entirely on the language on whether it supports civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union, I'm for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage, as much as the rights that people are afforded," Kerry told National Public Radio on Monday.

Back in 1986, Kerry gave an impassioned 10-minute speech on the Senate floor against an earlier effort in Congress to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman. He was one of just 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act.

"This is a power grab into states' rights of monumental proportions," Kerry said at the time, accusing Republicans of using legislation to drive a wedge between Americans. "It is ironic that many of the arguments for this power grab are echoes of the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago.

"It is hard to believe that this bill is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans," he added, while noting his own personal objections to gay marriage.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html

CHAPTER VIII

DEGRADATION, SHOCK AND ENDURANCE
Degradation and conquest are companions. In order to be conquered, a nation must be degraded, either by acts of war, by being overrun, by being forced into humiliating treaties of peace, or by the treatment of her populace under the armies of the conqueror. However, degradation can be accomplished much more insidiously and much more effectively by consistent and continual defamation.

Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics on the broad field. Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices, and national heroes must be systematically carried out, but this is the chief function of the Communist Party Members, in general, not the psychopolitician.

The realm of defamation and degradation, of the psychopolitician, is Man himself. By attacking the character and morals of Man himself, and by bringing about,through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree.

There is a curve of degradation which leads downward to a point where the endurance of an individual is almost at end, and any sudden action toward him will place him in a state of shock. Similarly, a soldier held prisoner can be abused, denied, defamed, and degraded until the slightest motion on the part of his captors will cause him to flinch. Similarly, the slightest word on the part of his captors will cause him to obey, or vary his loyalties and beliefs. Given sufficient degradation, a prisoner can be caused to murder his fellow countrymen in the same stockade. Experiments on German prisoners have lately demonstrated that only after seventy days of filthy food, little sleep, and nearly untenable quarters, that the least motion toward the prisoner would bring about a state of shock beyond his endurance threshold, and would cause him to hypnotically receive anything said to him. Thus, it is possible, in an entire stockade of prisoners, to the number of thousands, to being about a state of complete servile obedience, and without the labor of personally addressing each one, to pervert their loyalties and implant in them adequate commands to insure their future conduct, even when released to their own people.

By lower the endurance of a person, a group, or a nation, and by constant degradation and defamation, it is possible to induce, thus, a state of shock which will receive adequately any command given.

The first thing to be degraded in any nation is the state of Man, himself. Nations which have high ethical tone are difficult to conquer. Their loyalties are hard to shake, their allegiance to their leaders is fanatical, and what they usually call their spiritual integrity cannot be violated by duress. It is not efficient to attack a nation in such a frame of mind. It is the basic purpose of Psychopolitics to reduce that state of mind to a point where it can be ordered and enslaved. Thus, the first target is Man, himself. He must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic reaction pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable only of animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself, or of his fellows, as capable of "spiritual endurance," or nobility.

The best approach toward degradation in its first stages is the propaganda of "scientific approach" to Man. Man must be consistently demonstrated to be a mechanism without individuality, and it must be educated into a populace under attack that Man's individualistic reactions are the product of mental derangement. The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against the efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic and insane, and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.

An optimum condition in such a program of degradation would address itself to the military forces of the nation, and bring them rapidly away from any other belief than the disobedient one must be subjected to "mental treatment." An enslavement of a population can fail only if these rebellious individuals are left to exert their individual influences upon their fellow citizens, sparking them into rebellion, calling into account their nobilities and freedoms. Unless these restless individuals are stamped out and given into the hands of psychopolitical operatives early in the conquest,there will be nothing but trouble as the conquest continues. The officials of the government, students, readers, partakers of entertainment,must all be indoctrinated, by whatever means, into the complete belief that the restless, the ambitions, the natural leaders, are suffering from environmental maladjustments, which can only be healed by recourse to psychopolitical operatives in the guise of mental healers.

By thus degrading the general belief in the status of Man it is relatively simple, with co-operation from the economic salients being driven into the country, to drive citizens apart, one from another, to bring about a question of the wisdom of their own government, and to cause them to actively beg for enslavement.

The educational programs of Psychopolitics must, at every hand, seek out the levels of youth who will become the leaders in the country's future, and educate them into the belief of the animalistic nature of Man. This must be made fashionable. They must be taught to frown upon ideas, upon individual endeavor. They must be taught, above all things, that the salvation of Man is to be found only by his adjusting thoroughly to this environment.

This educational program in the field of Psychopolitics, can best be followed by bringing about a compulsory training in some subject such as psychology or other mental practice, and ascertaining that each broad program of psychopolitical training be supervised by a psychiatrist who is a trained psychopolitical operative.

As it seems in foreign nations that the church is the most ennobling influence, each and every branch and activity of each and every church, must, one way or another, be discredited. Religion must become unfashionable by demonstrating broadly, through psychopolitical indoctrination, that the soul is non-existent, and that Man is an animal. The lying mechanisms of Christianity lead men to foolishly brave deeds. By teaching them that there is a life here-after, the liability of courageous acts, while living, is thus lessened. The liability of any act must be markedly increased if a populace is to be obedient. Thus, there must be no standing belief in the church, and the power of the church must be denied at every hand.

The psychopolitical operative, in his program of degradation, should at all times bring into question any family which is deeply religious, and, should any neurosis or insanity be occasioned in that family, to blame and hold responsible their religious connections for the neurotic or psychotic condition. Religion must be made synonymous with neurosis and psychosis. People who are deeply religious would be less and less held responsible for their own sanity, and should more and more be relegated to the ministrations of psychopolitical operatives.

By perverting the institutions of a nation and bringing about a general degradation, by interfering with the economics of a nation to the degree that privation and depression come about, only minor shocks will be necessary to produce, on the populace as a whole, an obedient reaction or an hysteria. Thus, the mere threat of war, the mere threat of aviation bombings, could cause the population to sue instantly for peace. It is a long and arduous road for the psychopolitical operative to achieve this state of mind on the part of the whole nation, but no more than twenty or thirty years should be necessary in the entire program. Having to hand, as we do, weapons with which to accomplish the goal.

and straight white males proportionately commit more
violence than any other population, there are very good reasons to be afraid of white straight men.

The top six U.S. male serial killers were all gay:

• Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky;

• John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard;

• Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways;

• Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois;

• A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and

• Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he "made love" with their corpses).

Lesbian Aileen Wuornos laid claim in 1992 to "worst female killer" with at least 7 middle-aged male victims. She singlehandedly topped the lesbian nurse team of Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham, who had killed 6 convalescent patients in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The association between serial murder and homosexuality isn’t recent. Two gays compete for the spot of "world’s worst murderer." During the Nazi reign of terror, Auschwitz executioner Ludwig Tiene strangled, crushed, and gnawed boys and young men to death while he raped them. Though his grand total is uncertain, he often murdered as many as 100 a day. Gilles de Rais (Bluebeard) brutally destroyed the lives of 800 boys. Each lad was lured to his home, bathed and fed. Just as the poor boy thought "this is my lucky day," he was raped, then killed by being ripped or cut apart and either burned or eaten.

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals.(2)

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

IN THE UNITED STATES

BATTERING . Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor's attention.

SEXUAL ASSAULT . Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

THE TARGETS . Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Young women, women who are separated, divorced or single, low- income women and African-American women are disproportionately victims of assault and rape. Domestic violence rates are five times higher among families below poverty levels, and severe spouse abuse is twice as likely to be committed by unemployed men as by those working full time. Violent attacks on lesbians and gay men have become two to three times more common than they were prior to 1988.

IMPACT ON CHILDREN . Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have grown up in homes where they saw violence. Children who have witnessed violence at home are also five times more likely to commit or suffer violence when they become adults.

IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES . Women who are battered have more than twice the health care needs and costs than those who are never battered. Approximately 17 percent of pregnant women report having been battered, and the results include miscarriages, stillbirths and a two to four times greater likelihood of bearing a low birth weight baby. Abused women are disproportionately represented among the homeless and suicide victims. Victims of domestic violence are being denied insurance in some states because they are considered to have a "pre-existing condition."

SOURCES:

"Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report", U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., January 1994.

"The National Women's Study," Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 1992.

Bullock, Linda F. and Judith McFarlane, "The Birth Weight/Battering Connection," Journal of American Nursing, September 1989.

McFarlane, Judith, et. al., "Assessing for Abuse During Pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association, June 17, 1992.

Sheehan, Myra A. "An Interstate Compact on Domestic Violence: What are the Advantages?" Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 1993.

A study of five cities -- New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Minneapolis -- by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, published in 1992.

The best you can come up with was something from the National Organization of Whores?

Aren't they the ones who ignored the plight of the burka, while soiling their panties and hairy legs over inclusion in a golf course?

Isn't/wasn't Patricia Ireland the one with the vacant stare, akin to the Manson girls?

Yeah, the FemiNazis sure have the true facts, don't they? I'll bet my cakes they didn't skew the figures in the least. Leftist animal regressives who have anal fetishes can be trusted implicitly, right?

The American Psychological Assc says of hate crime "...not only is it an attack on ones physical self, but it is also an attack on one's very identity."

"Bias Crime—A criminal offense committed against a person or property which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin; also known as Hate Crime." -- Hate Crime Data Collection - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime.pdf

Over the past eight years, now that national data collection has been stabilized to a degree, the figures show a remarkable consistency. There was a significant increase in 2001 in attacks on Muslims or Arabs.

1999 saw a spate of horrific attacks with multiple victims, perhaps motivated by apocalyptic visions and millennial expectation sparked by the approach of the year 2,000.

Remember that when evaluating the statistics, that these numbers should be posed against the percentage of each group in the U.S. population, when comparing across bias motivation. For example, given the relatively small numbers of Jews and Muslims in the U.S., the figures show a different picture.

The most significant small trends appear to be an overall decrease in anti-White attacks, fluctuations in attacks on Hispanics, a spate of attacks aimed at Muslims or Arabs in 2001-2002, and a small decrease in attacks aimed at Jews.

Note: Chart compiled by Political Research Associates based on US Hate Crimes statistics collected by the FBI under the Uniform Crime Reports program. Collection of data on disability began in 1997.

The APA, as well as the AMA and the CDC, is highly politicized and infiltrated by Bareback Riders and Bug Chasers. Their respective data can't be trusted any more than any other Leftist degenerate.

They all look the same to me.

The APA, as well as the AMA and the CDC and NAMBLA, is highly politicized and infiltrated by Bareback Riders and Bug Chasers. Their respective data can't be trusted any more than any other Leftist degenerate.

They all look the same to me.

Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print "WE RECRUIT" on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren't as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) . See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

would you like to be recruited, little boy? thanks for all the laughs, durutti, you are a riot.

these homophobe posts are some of the most prejediced, violent shit i've seen in a long time. i thought IMC has a policy against this. if these were racist comments, you'd hide them instantly. why aren't you hiding this shit?

homophobe should start posting under his real name...Hitler.

Is it violent to your senses?

That's how we straights feel about you and your kind constantly forcing your Degeneracy down our necks, even seeking the approbation of malleable children in elementary schools.

One of your own, Camille Paglia, did say years ago there would be a backlash. You bastards never wanted to be left alone. You're militant and in our faces, and you piss your panties over "violence"?

There isn't a single lie you've told about gay people that wasn't told about black people during the civil rights movement. I won't even lecture you how wrong and fucked up your postings are. "You people"? "Militant"?

People are recruited to be "straight" before they even learn to talk. It's told to them by their TV, movies, parents, religion, schools, etc.

"All" gay people aren't militant (although with fucks like you around, I wouldn't discourage it), just like "all" black people in the 60's weren't militant. "All" gay people don't want to "recruit" other gay people, just like "all" jews don't want to recruit other jews.

In fact, I had a SHITLOAD more gay people than you do, and NONE of them have ANY of the characteristics you describe.

But I guess ignorance and hate don't really care about people or reality.

I wanted to apologize to everyone for saying such disparaging things about the gay/bi/lesbian community. As it turns out, I've been secretly homosexual for years, but I feel too intimindated to come out of the closet, so I take out my frustrations by attacking fellow homosexuals.

Hopefully, I will soon be comfortable enough with my homosexuality to come out of the closet and celebrate my sexuality!

Until then, please don't take offense to my comments. I'm a scared, ignorant child who tries to manipulate statistics to breed hate. Hitler did the same thing.

One day, when this country abadons its homophobia, I'll be the first one out. Until that day, I'll keep hiding my homosexual tendencies under my bed (next to my copy of Mein Kampf).

Does anyone else think guys in the anti-war movement are really sexy? I know I do. How can I worry about making peace when all I wanna do i make love?

Does anyone else thing Simon from American Idol is really hot?

Then i wouldn't get to abuse and push women around nearly as much! More lesbians mean less female slaves for me to oppress. Some women might even become "liberated" from patriarchal institutions. Fuck that! Wake up, women! You are and will always be slaves to men!

Dance Mary, Dance

Armstrong Williams

February 28, 2004

One moment gay and lesbian protesters are demanding that we regard them not by their insipid sexual acts, but as complex human beings deserving of the same inalienable rights the constitution reserves for all "humans." The next moment they are labeling and dismissing any human who breaks ranks with their cause.

Exhibit A: Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney. Amid the hubbub over the proposed gay marriage amendment, gay protesters have trained their scorn on Mary. A new website, dearmary.com, attempts to shame her for not publicly opposing the administration's support of an amendment banning same sex unions. A proposed ad on the web site features Mary's picture on a milk carton. The caption reads, "Have you seen me?" and suggests that she is a coward for not joining their cause. The site also posts thousands of emails imploring Mary to speak out for homosexual rights. Web founder and DC political consultant John Aravosis sees nothing wrong with harassing the Vice President's daughter. "The White House has no problem publicly discussing whether my family's relationships are valid and healthy, yet they refuse to discuss their own," said Aravosis to The Washington Post.

Never mind that they've completely objectified Mary. Never mind that they've distilled this complex human being into a symbol designed solely to solicit a knee-jerk reaction. Or that they've shown no respect for her right to privacy. Or that they've put her sexuality on a public stage and demanded that she sculpt it to meet their idea of proper gay etiquette-as defined not by an abiding respect for human privacy or civil rights, but by what they think a homosexual ought to do.

Get it? Mary doesn't act as gay as they feel she should so they label and dismiss her. How neat and easy and ridiculously absurd. I mean, isn't this precisely the sort of reductive stereotyping that the homosexual activists are supposed to be fighting against? I mean, isn't that their thing? Respecting a human beings freedom to make intimate decisions without heaps of third-party indignation and scorn? Apparently the ideas that are supposed to animate their cause with meaning fall by the wayside at the first chance for some decent pub.

All of which is incredibly telling. The homosexual activist aren't so much concerned with respecting an individual's right to privacy, as they are with forcing social change. If that means harassing the Vice President's daughter, so be it. If it means undermining the standards and norms of a culture they never felt a part of, even better.

After all, why do gay couples want the church's blessing? They could go about their business just fine without having been "wed" in a church, right? Unless there is more to it. It is political, and often economic. They want greater standing and treatment among the heterosexual majority. The best way, they believe, to achieve that end is through a union like marriage. So much the better if anti-gay institutions are destroyed as a result. They see it as another victory. But if you look behind the rhetoric about civil rights, it becomes clear that they are acting at the expense of what is best for society, and to grant them victory, would be to rip our most sacred religious and cultural ideals to shreds. This no one owes them!

durutti -
stop wasting your time; after the offensive, prejudiced shit you wrote about gay people, no one gives a crap about your criticisms or opinions of the editors, or anything else. you're an ignorant, hate-filled bigot. no one's going to have a discussion with you now because no one respects you (if they ever did).
you're a bigot, and if the editors are changing your titles, good. if they delete it altogether, even better. one less post fueling violence and prejudice against gay people just trying to live their lives, hoping assholes like you mind your own business and leave them the fuck alone.
political arguments are one thing, but your statements are simply attacking an entire group of people you've never met. racism, sexism, the holocaust, all because of narrow-minded fucks just like you. go fuck yourself.

Don't take it so personal, touchy little Democrap.

Hey, why not a duck? A man in India married his grandmother and a duck. Why not? Intolerant bigots arrayed against traditional marriage ask (not argue rationally, mind you, but merely ask), "How does two homosexuals getting 'married' affect you?" May as well ask, "How does Farmer Brown marrying some barnyard animal affect your marriage?" It may not directly affect your relationship with your lawfully wedded spouse but it sure cheapens the whole concept of marriage. And I remind you, the courts won't merely be "ruling" on the issue of marriage but rather "redefining" marriage - a power it does not have under the Constitution, particularly since this beneficient social institution predates the state itself. So short of leaving the primal structure of marriage alone, the courts will be exercising an unconstitutional, despotic power. And I also remind you that homosexuals already have equal protection under the law in that they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of humanity has been doing for the last six thousand years. Equal protection should mean one law for all, pursued evenhandedly regardless of our differences, not separate laws invented because of them. Think about it.

If the radical counterculture is going to tamper with an institution that was given to a man and a woman to beautify and perpetuate humanity for the sake of posterity, consider this challenge. If you people are hellbent on reducing marriage to merely a convenient social contract that's only about the love of the moment, then you had better start agitating for the "right" of a bisexual to be "married" to a man and a woman lover at the same time. And let's make polygamy legal too since at this point on the slippery slope no one is in any moral or political position to claim that polygmous love is any less valid than homosexual love or even the "love" of a father for his teenaged daughter who willingly returns such affections for that matter. I bet some of you perverts would like that, wouldn't you?

And does anyone remember when the radical hippy counterculture of the 1960s was spewing their poison about how they "didn't need a piece of paper to validate their love"? Hence, we got legalized fornication. Well I sure do and now these same hippy countercultural Pied Pipers who haven't grown up yet are now demanding homosexuals should have that " piece of paper". So, which is it? Why does your statements of faith keep changing with the winds? And I also seem to remember radical feminists who said "marriage is only legalized rape." Remember that? I do. So what are we suppose to believe now, that the radical feminists who are clamoring for homosexual marriage think it's alright for homosexuals to be raping one another? Oh, what a tangled web the counterculture weaves when they try to deceive the naive.

If the liberal extremists get their way, score one for debauchery, zero for civil society

Hank

Hank, you seem to be confused between your personal,, religious conception of marriage and the marriage rights granted by the government. I'm a law student, so maybe I can help clarify things for you. You said:

"How does two homosexuals getting 'married' affect you?" May as well ask, "How does Farmer Brown marrying some barnyard animal affect your marriage?" It may not directly affect your relationship with your lawfully wedded spouse but it sure cheapens the whole concept of marriage."

What concept of marriage are you referring to? Your personal, religious concept? Some believe the concept of marriage is "love", others believe it's family, still others commitment and security. Should people who live together and love each other not have hospital visitation rights because you don't like how it affects some meaningless, subjective conception? Divorce rates seem to cheapen the "concept" of marriage alot more than two people who live their lives together but are the same "sex"; so do you think divorce should be illegal?

You said:
"And I remind you, the courts won't merely be "ruling" on the issue of marriage but rather "redefining" marriage - a power it does not have under the Constitution, particularly since this beneficient social institution predates the state itself."

Marriage itself may predate the Constitution, however the social and political rights granted to married persons didn't exist until after the government's formation, and most of these rights didn't exist until the last 100 years. Rights that have been granted by courts were the result of "implied contracts between persons living in a committed relationship", to which there's no reason gay/lesbian couples should qualify as well.

Again, we're not talking about "marriage under the eyes of God", we're talking about specific rights granted to married couples, and why the same rights should be granted to all persons living in loving, committed relationships. Visitation rights and medical decisions, funeral arrangements, estate planning, seperation/divorce rights, etc.

You said:
"So short of leaving the primal structure of marriage alone, the courts will be exercising an unconstitutional, despotic power."

Unconstitutional? For the state to determine who qualifies for particular rights? Quite the contrary. "Equal protection under the law" seems to imply that people should be treated equally, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, marrital status, or, yes, sexuality.

Allowing women to vote changed our entire conception of government. Was this despotic?

Freeing the slaves was also clearly against Constitutional implications. Was that despotic?

Coercing homosexuals into having "straight" relationships by witholding benefits from them? Now THAT sounds despotic.

You said:
"And I also remind you that homosexuals already have equal protection under the law in that they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of humanity has been doing for the last six thousand years. Equal protection should mean one law for all, pursued evenhandedly regardless of our differences, not separate laws invented because of them. Think about it."

You think that equal protection means that homosexuals are free to be heterosexual? So if laws only protected Christians, is that "equal" for Jews because they are free to convert like "everybody else"?

And you need to read up about the history of marriage. It's definition has varied greatly from culture to culture, some not having ANY conception of marriage. You're referring to a particular cultural interpretation of a particular religous interpretation of marriage. Needless to say, this is an incredibly ethnocentric and racist statement.

You said:
"If the radical counterculture is going to tamper with an institution that was given to a man and a woman to beautify and perpetuate humanity for the sake of posterity, consider this challenge"

Wrong, hank. Marriage rights weren't given to "beautify and perpetuate humanity", they were given to protect people who undertake "relationship contracts". By the way, slavery was also once seen to be an institution that "benefitted humanity", and, just like you do, people's rights were trampled on to protect your "conception" of marriage.

Well, this is getting kind of old, and the rest of your comment is even more blindly bigoted. Your true colors really show when you refer to homosexuals as "perverts". You also mention that gay love is "love of the moment", which makes zero sense since divorce rates among straight people are skyrocketing, and there are many gay people in loving, committed relationships.

To make a long story short, if you think that gay people shouldn't enjoy the same rights to health care, hospital visitation rights, divorce rights, child-care rights, etc. because you don't like the "concept", get over it. I understand it's easy to hate people when you don't know them; I'm sure you would have been a fabulous racist 50 years ago; but times change. LGBT persons are just like everyone else, no matter how much you try to demonize them. They love, hate, laugh, cry, and suffer just like everyone else. If a gay person is in a healthy relationship, it'll probably last; if not, it probably won't. The same goes for straight people. Try looking at people as individuals instead of categorizing them in groups so you can be bigoted.

Hmm...maybe society's homophobia can, quite literally, drive a person insane?

No, that's crazy.

Hah. pun. good.

Dzr

Yeah, but I liked that part of the debate concerning degradation and conquest, if only because the process of social degradation is a derivative of the bimodal and socially derived dynamics of denigration and feminization. Aside from Rush Limbaugh's paranoid fear of the denigration and feminization of white male supremacy (my interpretation, not his), there's also some growing recognition that objectifying people as sex objects (feminization) and/or work objects (denigration) clearly threaten the legitimacy of white male heterosexual power structures and the cultural edifice of orthodox human relationships.

Cleveland Indy Media Center

Rally in Columbus, 2/21

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

IN THE UNITED STATES

SOURCES:

Totals

Totals