What? Ok, please explain the other side, why is this legislation good? Are you against civil rights or do you just dislike homosexuals? If this amendment banned marriage between people of different races, would you justify it with those comments?

i think what Lemonnier was gettting at is the fact that there are way more fucked up things going on in the nation/world than same sex marriages, so it seems a little petty and silly that while we seem to overlook our abundance of flaws, yet we can't help but point out all of them fags

oh and by the way, i understand that you support the realm of free thought and the freedom to choose, but what we all fail to realize is that homosexuality has been rampant for ages, long before this great nation, i gaurantee that some of the people who voted probably declare Plato to be a great Philosopher, but is that in spite of his homosexual practices?

and while we are at it, why don't we shut down the Oral Sex Group because it is illegal in at least my state

Hitler killed homosexuals, we are better than that, we at least let them live, we just don't recognize their marriages

blah blah blah

Actually Raoul I like to think of it as the people or the people they elected making laws.

Look, I'm a firm beliver in letting the Governemt (of, by and for the people btw) work.

By the way I noticed that nobody made the coments about class or a lack of education when France recently annuled a gay marriage. Just lots of "oh that's sad" type coments. Couldn't find the thread where it was discussed.

No RIGHT THINKING person could rationally oppose same sex marriage. I have never heard anyone name a specific negitive effect of same sex marriage.

You can keep your democracy off my fundamental human rights, thanks.

That's such a cop-out...nice dodge. So no civil rights for minorites for you?

(What? Ok, please explain the other side, why is this legislation good? Are you against civil rights or do you just dislike homosexuals? If this amendment banned marriage between people of different races, would you justify it with those comments?)


[Edited on Aug 04, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

As a Missourian, I'm disappointed. I don't agree with what's being done at all. The way I see it is that if two people are in love, they should be able to get married, gender be damned. But I realize that there are many, many people here that fear anything outside of the norm. The intolerance doesn't bother me that much. After all, I'm a clean-cut, straight white man.

What does bother me about this is the precedent that it sets for inapproriate legislation. The right of a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman has NO BEARING to how the state's government should be run. I'll let this quote from the late Judge Johm Parker explain:

The way I see it, this goes against both.

Wrong Idjiit, By it's very nature Democracy is "majority rules".

We may practice something different (a Republic) but a true Democracy is where the will of the majority of the people goes.

And I guess the Nazi-rule had to come into effect before the end of the first page, eh Darksky?

I guess by internet rules that means this discussion is over.

[Edited on Aug 04, 2004 by gaiseric]

I guess this discussion is over... because he can't justify his position. Or did he get caught being a hater...?

You mean like the laws saying black people can't marry white people? I don't recall the wise and democratic people of Missouri doing much about those either. I seem to recall them saying that the little Brown children weren't good enough o go to white schools either.

You mean France, the country that has nationwide gay civil unions? Thats what the ruling was based on by the way, their civil union statue.

Pity you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Ah yes, Plato...slept with young boys. But, then again at that time, if your son's teacher wasn't sleeping with him, there was somethiing wrong with your kid. Or, at least that's how one of my history professors put it. I'd really like to see gay marriages become legal. However, I don't think it'll happen today. I don't think it'll happen tomorrow or next year or the year after that. Let's just focus on not getting blown up first.

Ok, Answers to each of you in turn. Sorry, am working on a project at the moment as well.

First off, I'd support something along the lines of France's Civil Unions, I'd really be behind it if it included a change in current paternaty laws since Civil Unions could cause issues with them.

Next, I counted a couple of different people calling MO a cesspool, which I read as a way of saying backward shit hole without really saying it. There were some educational/literacy/teen pregancy stats thrown in there for good measure.

Finally, the US Government had already said that such laws as the ones you (reprobate) mention were illegal. Hense the greater whole over rode a local majority. Federal Government's can be a good thing. Finally, you equate sexual identity to race. I'd have a different take on it than you.

Finally, the majority of the southerner's didn't want to keep slaves. They chose to fight in the Civil War for other things. Read their diaries and letter's home sometimes.

Oh yeah, and the Nazi crack was because by old USENET/IRC rules you could always tell that a thread was garbage because that is all that usually followed a coment about them.

[Edited on Aug 04, 2004 by gaiseric]

So you still think it's cool for a state to deny civil rights to a minority as long as a majority votes for it. How far should we take this...?

Raoul. Sorry to disapoint you but I'm a pretty hard core Libertarian.

http://www.lp.org/

For those of you who don't know who we are and what we stand for.

[Edited on Aug 04, 2004 by gaiseric]