U.S. Senate Rejects Gay Marriage Amendment

gay marriage??? is that a contradiction in terms??? If gays can do what heteros do naturally, that is, conceive & bear children naturally, then I'll go to Gods court for them... otherwise it isnt about division, its about seeking redemption from a stigma...... thank ye, no!

Here I thought the union between a man and a woman was for the purpose of giving life to another human being.... since when can two adults of like being make ,form or for what ever your choice of words make a baby... that is without intervention of a doctor or scientist. I will willingly support a civil union for these couples but marriage?! I think not . That is unless they can prove to me that they can create life within their womb naturally.

Where is the separation of Church and state here? Marriage is an institution that is manipulated by many, just look at the divorce rate at over 50%! Call it something else but Gay and Lesbian couples should be able to reap the same benefits as US citizens that hetersoxual couples have. There are MANY well educated, professional and wealthy gay and lesbian couples that contribute just as much if not MORE to our society. Futhermore, there are many couples that have been screwed by our system in the loss of partner. I'm wondering if some of these people who comment against cival rights would feel the same way if THEIR son or daughter were gay or lesbian. If the answer to that is yes, I feel very sad for them!!

And, to rebute Cheryl from Chicago, should hetero couples that are sterile or unable to conceive a child be banned from marrying also? What about lesbian couples that ARE able to conceive?

People like you used to burn women at the stake for no reason!

Quite frankly the thought of the US Government, or any State Government for that matter, dictating their own moral agenda upon everyone is disturbing.

Exactly whose idea of what 'marriage' is should be the only one?

Exactly whose morality should be the supreme one?

If two men, or two women, choose to show their feelings for each other by being joined in union, who am I as a Christian, heterosexual, married, male, father of three, to pass judgement on them and proclaim my morality to be the only one that counts?

Personally don't care if gays or lesbians marry each other. If you are opposed to it answer one simple question.

Exactly how does a gay or lesbian couple proclaiming their devotion to each other through a legally binding union adversely affect you?

Save the 'it is against the Bible or God's word' arguement. I am not interested in hearing the legalistic arguement, and I am quite well versed in Theology.

Just tell exactly how this adversely affects you, personally.

Bill, the truth of the matter is - they cannot!

Pick any arguement they make and they can easily be rebuffed.

Let's look at the top three excuses one at a time:

1) Marriage is an American Institution and must be protected to be just between a man and a woman: 50% divorce rate? Thats far from an institution. ALso, as long as 2 drunks can get married in a drive thru wedding chapel in Las Vegas, that's very weak ground on which to build and institution

2) Marriage is a gift from God and must be preserved: Separation of church and state. See the first amendment to the US Constitution.

3) Marriage is for procreation/children: Then marriage licences should only be given to fertile couples, and those who are paralized, or women who have gone thru menopause may not be married because they cannot have children.

4) Gay marriage will undermine US Society: See the State of Massachusetts. Gay marriage has been the law there for nearly 2 years. THere has been NO destruction of society there. The streets are not running with blood, the sky is not falling - life goes on!
The concept of Separate but Equal has never withstood Constitutional muster, and it won't here.

Unneccessary to make a man and a woman to be good parents. Look at all the abandoned or abused children around the world. People are not maken for producing the next generation. There are lots of important things in our lives. Love and respect/acceptance should be counted too.

cheryl in PA wrote:

Here I thought the union between a man and a woman was for the purpose of giving life to another human being.... since when can two adults of like being make ,form or for what ever your choice of words make a baby... that is without intervention of a doctor or scientist. I will willingly support a civil union for these couples but marriage?! I think not . That is unless they can prove to me that they can create life within their womb naturally.

Brilliant Cheryl, let's use your fine mind with all of its beautifully articulated logic and amend the constitution:

No marriage for anybody who cannot make children
1. no elderly marriages
2. no reproductively challenged people
3. no people who do not desire to have children
4. no gays

I'm sure there are more on your list you Moron! care to help us fill in the rest?

Bob said

3) Marriage is for procreation/children: Then marriage licences should only be given to fertile couples, and those who are paralized, or women who have gone thru menopause may not be married because they cannot have children.

This would be descrimination against those couples with a disability, nothing to do with couples who just don't have the right parts to accomplish the task!

cheryl in PA wrote:

Here I thought the union between a man and a woman was for the purpose of giving life to another human being.... since when can two adults of like being make ,form or for what ever your choice of words make a baby... that is without intervention of a doctor or scientist. I will willingly support a civil union for these couples but marriage?! I think not . That is unless they can prove to me that they can create life within their womb naturally.

Then you would not mind banning the marriage of an 80 year old woman whos womb can no longer produce children?

Who cares? let's all get on with our lives and stop trying to
judge others.

Age discrimination

It is not about being able to conceive children that should be the reason for getting married.
The bible tells us that God made Eve to be a help mate to Adam.
The gay life style is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and is a sin. Those who agree with these life styles and those who vote for the same sex marriage is a party to their sin.
God help you all. And in the day that the Lord rewards his faithful, the gays and lesbians will not be a part of that reward if they are living in this sinful way.
Rev. Thurston Hill
Kershaw, S.C.

When will this foolishness stop? What next, marrigage to a five year old? Marriage to a dog? After all, they are merely lifestyle choices.

Bocephus wrote:

It is not about being able to conceive children that should be the reason for getting married.
The bible tells us that God made Eve to be a help mate to Adam.
The gay life style is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and is a sin. Those who agree with these life styles and those who vote for the same sex marriage is a party to their sin.
God help you all. And in the day that the Lord rewards his faithful, the gays and lesbians will not be a part of that reward if they are living in this sinful way.
Rev. Thurston Hill
Kershaw, S.C.

Aside from the "abomination in the eyes of the Lord" mantra, how exactly would a union between two men, or two women, adversely affect you?

What tragic event would occur to you personally if this happened?

And what about those Pastors/Priests/ etc. that are openly homosexual? Are you saying those Churches that have allowed such to occur are also an "abomination in the eyes of the Lord"?

This is just a pitiful attempt by the Bush administration to divert attention from the real issues. Who really cares who people are attracted to? Man to a woman, man to a man, woman to a woman, woman to a man. It doesnt matter. We have the right in this country to pursue happiness in any way shape or form, and if gay people want to be with each other, neither me or any of you, have the right to say otherwise.

Bush, the "prominent conservative" is being a hypocrite by exploiting government as a solution to a moral issue that only bugs him and a bunch of other nosey members of the religious right.

I'm sorry Bocephus, but your post made me want to throw up. God and the Bible encourage caring for your fellow human being, which means sexual orientation means pretty much nothing. You shouldn't think any less of people for what they personally prefer. Try to meet some gays and lesbians. The ones I know are very nice, upstanding and some are religious (despite a few objections) and if you can't put aside your 1950's style of prejudice to realize that, then I feel sorry for you.

Here's a concept for all of you. Worry about yourselves and stop trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their bodies and money. I am sick and tired of religious conservatives trying to tell women what to do with their uterus and telling homosexual men and women they are living in sin. You have absolutely zero right to regulate people's personal behavior. The only reason this is an issue is because the religious right is trying to make it an issue and it is deplorable that the senate wasted time voting on such a thing. Right to happiness people. If gay people want to get married, that's their decision. Nobody has the right to tell them otherwise.

Many of the men here where I am located love to dress as women and go out and find big and bullish men. The university where I attend contends and teaches that since the womens movement, where men were/are badmouthed and belittled everyday by militant feminists, that many slight men have decided to seek acceptance in communities that like them for being men instead of remaining in mainstream society where they are hated for being men. It's not that they are necessarily attracted to other men if all things were even, but rather, it is a matter of hanging out in a friendly environment as opposed to a hostile camp. Thus, the slight men dress and act as ladies and are loved for it and the bullish men get to be with a woman (sort of) without being demonized. therefor, I am all for gay marriage and I think we have the womens movement to thank for our new lifestyle... It took/takes some getting used to, but well worth it in the end

Damn Good! Am extremely impressed. Thank you.

Lonnie wrote:

When will this foolishness stop? What next, marrigage to a five year old? Marriage to a dog? After all, they are merely lifestyle choices.

OK is it lifestyle choice, a gene, a disease, etc,? Good post!

I think you are on to something Daro. I do not agree with the gay lifestyle or gay marriage but your point about men turning to other men for love and affection has certainly increased since the womens movement. The ladies have blamed all of society's ills on men and have leveled every charge possible and now men are finding solace among their own number. A young man who lives down the street from me frequents the adult bookstores and truckstops in order to entertain men. When I asked him about it he said much what you reported above. He said "hey, lonnie, all things being even I would rather be with a chick. But all things are not even. With men, I can have sex without the headgames and playing the game of "million questions". Many of todays young men look very frail and sissified and I think it is an attempt to appear attractive to other guys.