Garnered from the right-wing dust heep that is the...well heck, is most of the net. One must keep track of what the nuts of the world, other than our own personal board reactionaries, are doing.
---
Amendment Would Define Marriage as Male-Female Wednesday, July 11, 2001
WASHINGTON - A broad coalition of religious groups plans to introduce a constitutional amendment declaring marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman.
"The proposal will be officially introduced on Thursday," Matthew Daniels, executive director of the Alliance for Marriage, told United Press International on Sunday.
He described his organization as a "nonpartisan, multicultural marriage coalition, whose board of advisers includes the Rev. Walter Fountroy, former D.C. delegate who organized the March on Washington for Martin Luther King Jr." Daniels said the alliance represented "tens of million of American citizens, of every color and creed."
According to an AfM announcement, the amendment's draft to be introduced in Congress will read: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution (the Constitution of the United States) or the constitution of any state, not state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
According to Daniels, the co-authors of this text were professors Mary Ann Glendon of the Harvard Law School, Robert George of Princeton University, and others.
Glendon and George also belong to the alliance's board, as do Bishop George McKinney of the Church of God in Christ, a mostly black denomination, Patricia DeVeaux of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and Bishop Nathaniel Linsey of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.
Other board members are Jesse Miranda of the chiefly Hispanic Allianza Ministerial Evangelica Nacional, Sayyid Sayeed of the Islamic Society of North America, Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, William Teng of the Chinese Community Church of Washington, the Rev. Wong Sang Lee of the Korean Central Presbyterian Church, Vernon Shannon of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and David Anderson of the American Anglican Council.
The AfM announcement explained that "the institution of marriage (which is) so central to the well-being of both children and our society ... is under attack from powerful forces.
"Although these forces lack popular support sufficient to accomplish their goal of redefining marriage, they enjoy widespread sympathy in elite sectors of American culture - particularly in the legal profession, universities, and other opinion leaders. At the core of the social revolution that is underway in the American courts is the redefinition of marriage to serve ends espoused by homosexual activist organizations ...
"Tragically, this process is by now so far advanced that only a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage can decisively end the abuse of the judicial process as a vehicle for undermining both marriage and democracy in America."
David Smith, communications director for Human Rights Campaign -- a 400,000 member-strong homosexual organization, called the proposed amendment "yet another mean-spirited attempt to prevent gay families from receiving the same protection as non-gays do through their ability to marry."
"It seems like an enormous undertaking to keep gay people from receiving the same protections," said Smith. "These groups say they want to protect the family, but in doing so, are attacking gay families."
The AfM statement points out that when the U.S. Constitution was adopted, "marriage was taken for granted as a union of a man and a woman ... Consequently, the word 'marriage,' or ... the word, 'family' does not appear in the Constitution.
"The Common Law which we inherited from England was clear about marriage as a union of man and woman: 'Marriage ... includes the reciprocal duties of husband and wife.'"
More than 30 states have passed laws defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. In 1996 the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage "for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman."
Smith said the amendment "creates a climate in which gay people continue to be harassed and promote intolerance."
Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
----
Have at it.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:The AfM announcement explained that "the institution of marriage (which is) so central to the well-being of both children and our society ... is under attack from powerful forces.
So how is society threatened by there being same-sex marriages? Will kids, seeing that there are two blokes living next door, lose respect for their own parents or something, and start talking back, dressing strangely and listening to rock music? This is bigotry, pure and simple.
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
Why people want to prevent two people in love from getting married is beyond me.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
This is idiotic, and as Dictator, I would have those responsible deported to Iran. Except the Islamic guy, I'd deport him to Israel.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Nah, send him to Iran, at the Israelis' current rate of one-house-at-a-time expansion they'll be most of the way to China then. . . 8)
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
uhhhh hmmmm. ok. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to let religous groups push laws through congress. Such situations never end well.
All in all, here are my 2 pieces of advice to those who are trying o push this amendment through congress.
(1) Get a *bleep* life. (2) Mind your own damn business.
Would anyone like to add to that?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I'll add to that!
FUR IS MURDER! FUR IS MURDER!
::noticed everyone looking at him weird::
Sorry, what are we protesting about here?
Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :
*See thread on book burning for reply*
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, defining "marriage" as between a man and a woman is perfectly fine. The word has its basis in usage as a religio-cultural union, generally for the purpose of producing offspring, and 99% of all cultures only practised such unions on a heterosexual basis.
BUT...
Why what is essentially a religious practice need be recognized civilly is another matter altogether. Let marriage be a strictly heterosexual term. Fine. But as far as legal and governmental rights are concerned, ditch this bull about a religious ceremony having relevance. Common-law partnership, to which there is absolutely no ground to stand on to keep homosexuals out of, should be all that the laws refer to. Civil dependency should have nothing to do with church doctrine and everything to do with two people who love one another. A man and woman living together. A man and a man living together. An elderly brother and sister living together. Traditional marriage should merely considered another form of said civil dependence and be afforded no special rights.
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
You know, I think Crobato needs to pull some stuff out of his own ass before he talks about what other people are getting up theirs.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
I'm with the Tom.
Keep the word "marriage" for hetrosexual people all you want.
But do give gay couple the same right as a hetrosexual married coupled.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Does anyone remember when General Electric, I think, was going to provide medical coverage for same sex partners as the employees? I think it got out that they were going to, public outrage followed, and I haven't heard a thing afterwards.
The big question I had was whether or not the same sex couples had to have a legally binding contract, as is required for opposite sex couples, for one to cover the other on their insurance.
If not, then this opened a big ass can of worms, in the John can get Ron on his insurance, not having a contract, but Jim couldn't get Sarah covered on the same plan when they were living in the same manner.
GE probably pulled the plan when they realized that opposite sex couples that weren't married were waiting for the chance to sue for the same benefit.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
*aligns himself with The_Tom and BE*
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Y'know, my New Church of Hugo the Eternal Wombat [Reformed] says that homosexual marriage is fine, when consecrated by Hugo.
Therefore, this attempt at banning same-sex 'marriage' is an affront to my Church's freedom of worship, and is thusly unconstitutional. I plan to sue for 100 billion.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Exactly the reason for a seperation of the two systems of marriage. You want to be religiously married? Fine, it's your religion, but don't expect to be recognized by the government under current laws. Personally, I'm all for abolishing any legal recognition at all, but that's just me, and I'm not all that set on that idea.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Legal recognition of what? Religious marriages, or homosexuality?
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
I most certainly think the government should recognize a union between any couple, male female or male male or female female.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Exactly. Why should the government be bound to recognize the 'Christian' definition of marriage, (man and woman) rather than that of the Church of Hugo (any two people who love and committ to one another)? THAT is religious discrimination. The government MUST recognize ALL, or NONE.
If ALL, then same-sex unions are included, or can be, under that religion clause (and as Head of the Church of Hugo, I'm gonna make a mint on new members).
If NONE, then NO religion's definition of 'marriage' is relevant to whether a couple is or should be allowed to recieve benefits.
Either way, these people shouldn't win.
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Oh joy, another attempt to make my life more misrable in the future. No wonder I'm majoring in Political Science, I'm already to fuck my way to a congressional seat to stop things like this from happening.
Posted by Voivod (Member # 653) on :
I dont't think that politics and religion can be separated in the U.S.A. People are far too influenced by their religious beliefs so they can't see the difference, which fortunately still exists, IMO. (Religion is just speculation about matters which we'll never understand, and what God REALLY wants, thats a question we are not able to answer, whatever your local priest might say)
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Michael_T: Oh joy, another attempt to make my life more misrable in the future. No wonder I'm majoring in Political Science, I'm already to fuck my way to a congressional seat to stop things like this from happening.
I am prepared to help you in any way I can to help you win your campaigns!!!!! For free!!
That is another problem with our government. Important positions like defense secratary are being handed out to a bunch of rich dumbasses who aren't qualified to do the jobs that they have been appointed for. All because they donated a few hundred-thousand bucks to a canidates fucking campaign!!!
[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
And you think that that's something NEW???!!?!?
Somebody get this boy a World History book!
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
And/or a dictionary.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Fo2. Who were you talking to? Me or someone else?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You. Political job handouts are older than the frickin' Pyramids.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
I know that. It isn't exactly new to me! I'm just saying that it's one of the many problems in this country.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I DON'T THINK POLITICAL HANDOUTS ARE THAT OLD. MAYBE THE DARK AGES. WHEN PEOPLE DONATED MONEY TO THE KING SO THEY COULD BE THE LOCAL BISHOP.
GAY PEOPLE SCARE ME. THEY DON'T JUST FREAK ME OUT, OR MAKE ME FEEL JUST PLAIN SCARED, BUT THEY TERRIFY ME IN A MILLION WAYS. THEY DO STRANGE AN UNHUMAN THINGS TO EACH OTHERS BACKSIDES. THINGS THAT NO ONE IN THIER RIGHT MINDS SHOULD EVEN SUBCONSCIOUSLY THINK ABOUT.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Ummm... I sincerely hope that you are kidding there, Da_bang80.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
People who type in all-caps worry me. They should be rounded up and put somewhere 'safe.'
Obviously, Dabang's never heard about the millions of hetero males who do the same things to their female partners' backsides...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Including yourself, Robert, perhaps?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
As my good friend Kris told me my first year in college, "Man, a hole is a hole."
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
The anus is where stuff comes OUT, not where it goes IN. that's just sick.
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
Both pee and seed come out of the penis. The anus isn't exactly alone in the "stuff comes out" part. In fact, pee (and babies!) comes out of the vagina, so I guess -- by your logic -- even penis in vagina sex is gross and evil and sick.
In fact, I'm going to guess our homophobe friend here thinks that only oral sex is okay.
Grow up, kid.
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Well, Jeff, to be totally correct, babies come out through the vagina but urine passes through the urethra. There's two different tubes down there for two different purposes. However, both the urine and babies have to pass through the vulva.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
i'm not talking about babies or eurethra's here. i'm talking about shit. it stinks, and it sick. the vagina is meant to have some guys pecker in there. but not the asshole. and sorry about the capitals, i didn't notice i had them on.
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
quote:the vagina is meant to have some guys pecker in there. but not the asshole
Your opinion. Thankfully, most people are more open-minded then you.
Vogon: for the record, no. The idea grosses me out.
The fact that it grosses me out, however, has no real bearing on whether other people who don't find it gross and consent to engage in it should be permitted to do so or disliked because they do so in the privacy of their own bedrooms, no matter their gender.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I'd be careful about using the "unnatural" argument to argue against homosexually and anal sex. That argument can quickly descend into a support against fornication, oral sex, masturbation, fisting, other sexual play techniques, and female orgasm.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...sacred aperture." I like that... *LOL*
BTW, anal sex is a lot safer than vaginal sex if you're worried about the possibilty of pregnancy.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
True, though not totally so. Not even as foolproof as the pill, IIRC.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Er, what? You're saying that while anal sex is less likely to prevent pregnencies than regular sex, it's still not as good as being on the pill?
I'd love to see how you think women's bottoms are wired up, Omega.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Well, while one can rest assured that anal sex will not result in a pregnancy unless there is some sort of spermhole linking the rectum with the vagina, anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex when it somes to sexually-transmitted diseases. The inner membrane of the anal cavity is thinner and more prone to tearing than the inner vaginal membrane. So while anal sex is possible and pleasurable, the extent of roughness that can be accommodated is much less. In the end (no pun intended, I assure you all), the message is clear: always use sexual protection.
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Unless you're in a monogamous relationship and you and your partner has been tested for STDs. Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
True, but the risk for infectious disease is not limited simply to STD's. Many contagious diseases can be spread by blood-to-blood contact, so there is still some risk in unprotected anal sex even if you and your partner have tested negative for STD's.
Testing for STD's, on the other hand, is still a somewhat tricky business. For example, AIDS cannot really be detected within the first (I believe) three to six weeks of infection. And even then, those tests can still deliver false positives and negatives. It depends on the integrity of the test and the expertise of the test-taker and analyst. Also, some STD's can exist outside the human body for extended periods of time. AIDS cannot, but I believe herpes can. If a specific set of circumstances all has to occur in order for this to happen. It's not common, but it is possible.
In short, one can never be too careful. Nothing is 100% certain when it comes to disease and sexual activity. Condoms used in conjunction with birth control pills are still only 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy. And I just watched on the news today that condoms on their own may not truly be as effective blocking STD infections as previously believed (except for AIDS and gonnorhea).
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Er, what? You're saying that while anal sex is less likely to prevent pregnencies than regular sex, it's still not as good as being on the pill? I'd love to see how you think women's bottoms are wired up, Omega.
Darnit, where'd I put that book...
*rummages*
Well, I can't seem to find the book from which I got that particular statistic. Let me try the web...
*searches*
Huh. No luck there, either.
I believe it had something to do with semen leaking into the vagina. IIRC, the number for anal sex was 98% effective, and pills were 99% effective (when used correctly).
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Well, if the woman suffers from anal leakage or the man decided to ejaculate outside the rectum, then there is a chance of sperm sliding into the vagina. And it only takes one of the little buggers...
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Damn. I don't have a book anywhere, but I vaugely remembered hearing something about the female needing to get an orgasam as well to get pregnant. Well. Actually I don't think it's required, but I heard that there's a better chance of getting pregnant if she does have one. Oh dear. I'm feeling so uncomfrontable right now. I should and will leave now.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Orgasm? Heck, a woman can get pregnant through three layers of clothing, with no penetration involved, and no arousal on her part. It's extremely unlikely, but possible. But yeah, orgasm does increase the chances.
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
quote:Heck, a woman can get pregnant through three layers of clothing, with no penetration involved
Um.
What? The sperm burrows through clothes?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Jeff, I believe the appropriate phrase would be "You're soaking in it!"
Anyway, I watched a documentary on TLC last February called "Desmond Morris' The Human Animal." I think that was the title, but it dealth with the physical (biological and chemical) aspects of love and sex. One of the more interesting shots was an internal view from the vagina of a woman reaching orgasm. The couple was in missionary position, and the man had just ejaculated. Thus, a pool of semen had collected in the vagina near the cervix. As the woman reached her orgasm, her vaginal muscles contracted and the cervix dipped into the pool of semen multiple times. In that way, orgasm helps to insure pregnancy since the orgasm causes the cervix to pull down and pull the semen in the uterus. It's not absolutely needed, but it does help.
Yes, I'm well aware that I am contributing too much information to this thread.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I think we should have some award for the only thread on flare to use the phrase "anal leakage".
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: Anyway, I watched a documentary on TLC last February called "Desmond Morris' The Human Animal."
You know what? I think I saw that documentary a while back.
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
Did you really have to quote the whole fucking post, MIB? Jesus Fucking Christ.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The only point I was making is that you're much less likely to end up w/ a pregnancy on your hands through anal sex than through vaginal sex. I never said it was fool-proof. Safer, not completely safe.
Posted by The_Evil_Lord (Member # 256) on :
If there will ever be an award for Most Interesting Ongoing Off-Topic Conversations&Arguments, I'd put this thread up for nomination in a nanosecond Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Damn skippy. And it looks like Liam's giving me an award for typing "anal leakage" in a completely serious manner with no hidden meanings. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I got to think that a woman getting pregnant through 3 layers of clothing is enough to put Zaphod Beeblebrox's Improbability Drive to shame.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I regret ever posting that. this is just getting wierd.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I have to say, the title of this thread has become oddly appropriate...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Hmm. See what I started by asking about people's sexual activities. Again.
Oh, and once again I'll say "don't knock it if you haven't tried it." Interpret that how you will. 8P
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I shall take it to mean that you've tried to get a woman pregnent through 3 layers of clothes with no penetration involved.
And you possibly suffer from anal leakage, but I don't want to touch that.
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
Liam, congratulations.
I think that is the *worst* pun I have ever seen with mine own two eyes.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Actually, I'm not so sure he intended that as a pun. At least, I hope he didn't...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You mean you want me to touch it?
You sick, sick boy Timmy.
Posted by Jubilicious (Member # 99) on :
Oh that reminds me...
*goes to take her pill*
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Not a bad idea. I think we should all take our pills. Perhaps if we did, then unfortunate instances like Lee's anal leakage and Jeff's irrational hatred towards all forms of deer-life might be wiped out forever.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I make sure to take my medication everyday. It's the only thing that prevents me from capturing small animals and getting them addicted to cigarettes and email.
