Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

President Bush just gave a national address on TV about Gay marriage

Feb 23, 2004 11:58PM PST

critical of San Francisco, California and Mass. Urges Congress to immediately pass an amendment to the constitution concerning marriage between man and woman.

Bout time.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
so you think NAMBLA is protected by the Bill of Rights?
Feb 24, 2004 4:43AM PST

and that they should be free to enter into relationships? Otherwise, I don't see the logic of your post.

- Collapse -
I think (and you know) that he was saying homosexuals are protected by the Bill of Rights
Feb 25, 2004 5:24AM PST

The only people bringing NAMBLA into this are those who are trying to divert the topic by regurgitating the old and tired myth that homosexuals are also pedophiles.

Sex between adults and children is illegal and should remain so, regardless of the sexual orientation of the adults involved.

- Collapse -
Key is PROTECT, not create new 'rights'...
Feb 26, 2004 12:38AM PST

and ***** marriage is indeed "new".

Polygamists are a MINORITY and poligamy is NOT "new" so why have you come down against the practice every time it has been brought up in this forum? That is discriminatory as poligamy was an establushed family form before this country became a country and was legal in most states even after the country was formed.

12 and 13 were "marrying age" in this country for many long years so isn't it discriminating against the rights of the minority who want to marry young?

***** "marriage" was NEVER a right on the North American continent before or after the US of A was established so where do you arrive at it being a "right"?

- Collapse -
Who is trying to create rights?
Feb 26, 2004 12:50AM PST

It's time that the rights of gays to marry was recognized and protected.

That's pretty simple.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re: Key is PROTECT, not create new 'rights'...
Feb 26, 2004 3:13AM PST

Ed, you know that the "Q" word is forbidden. I'm leaving your message becuase it's integral to the thread, but a repeat use WILL be pulled.

Now, were Blacks suddenly granted human rights in the 1860's? No -- the rights they'd had all along were finally accepted by society, although it took another 100 years until the job was done, and 50 years later some still wish it weren't. The gay rights issue is precisely the same: they're human beings, with precisely the same rights as you and I. Hopefully it won't tak 150 years and a civil war before that premise is also well accepted.

Finally, no one is "inventing" anything, excepting perhaps excuses as to why some human beings are less human than others. But those arguments have precisely the same validity as they did when applied to Blacks, Jews, and other Untermensch in the past.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
The "Q" word forbidden? Since when?!
Feb 26, 2004 5:36AM PST

I've seen it used here and not a single thing said, but you take exception to it's use now? I could go back but I'm certain I saw posters recently talking about a show with the word in it. The name of the show was based on 5 (more?) gay guys with an eye for straight guys. Are you aware there is a gay organization that uses that word "Q..... Nation"?

It's hardly fair to allow gay supporters to use the term that gays themselves have been using, while trying to restrict it's use by others. There is nothing wrong with the word, it simply means "strange" or unusual. That it now seems to be a shameful word to you is based not on it's original meaning, but upon the association from reference to people that engage in a particular form of illicit sex. I predict that in the future, probably the same will be true of the word "gay".

- Collapse -
They aren't interested in Democracy, just in...
Feb 24, 2004 3:19AM PST

...fulfilling the lust of their flesh, engaging in their crime (sin), and then blaming everyone else for not making them feel better about themselves by accepting their activity as something commendable. Since they can't get willing acceptance they want to enforce lying acceptance. They don't seem to realize it will eventually increase the resentment and probably violence against them.

- Collapse -
wow*
Feb 24, 2004 3:48AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: They aren't interested in Democracy, just in...
Feb 24, 2004 12:31PM PST

Hi, James.

I assume you're married -- are you and your wife "just interested in the lust of your flesh?" If not, then how DARE you ascribe that motivation in a blanket fashion to other human beings? That's what's wrong with this whole discussion -- just as happened with Jews and Blacks and Irish in the past, homosexuals are being seen as a group and not as people.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Probably because they ARE A GROUP, they are NOT a 'people'...
Feb 26, 2004 12:44AM PST

as a people share a genetic inheritance and homosexual sex is non-reproductive EXCEPT in generating new COLONies of AIDS.

- Collapse -
You misread it.
Feb 26, 2004 12:56AM PST

Dave didn't say that they are 'a' people. He said that they were being seen as 'a group and not as people".

See the difference?

Dan

- Collapse -
It could be because their whole identity is tied up in their sexual proclivity.
Feb 26, 2004 3:10AM PST

That's not true of heterosexuals.

- Collapse -
Re:It could be because their whole identity is tied up in their sexual proclivity.
Feb 26, 2004 3:16AM PST

Hi, KP.

>>That's not true of heterosexuals.<<
Tell that to your average teenage boy. IAC, you're accepting negative stereotypes that have little basis in fact -- sort of saying "they" all like watermelon and dance well.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Huh? That IS why they're
Feb 26, 2004 2:03PM PST

called gays isn't it? What does an average teen age boy have to do with anything? Are you saying that gays are carried away by their hormones?

- Collapse -
The gays I know...
Feb 26, 2004 3:46AM PST

are not any more obsessed with sex than the average hetero. On what do you base your statement?

Dan

- Collapse -
And if they are?
Feb 24, 2004 10:28PM PST

Who are you to judge the reasons for people to get married? Do you also believe that heterosexuals who get married just to fulfill the lusts of their flesh deserve the beatings you describe?

Dan

- Collapse -
Beatings? I said nothing about beatings.
Feb 24, 2004 11:13PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Sorry, substitute 'violence'. -nt
Feb 25, 2004 12:28AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Hets and *****
Feb 25, 2004 11:09AM PST

The lust of the flesh among heterosexuals can bring forth the fruit of the flesh, a child.

The lust of the flesh among homosexual can never bring forth the fruit of a child into the world.

- Collapse -
OK. What's your point?
Feb 25, 2004 10:51PM PST

.

- Collapse -
That it's obvious from start to finish
Feb 26, 2004 5:41AM PST

the two are not the same relationship. Since that is easily recognized, even without getting into the logistics of the activity, then it should also be obvious that such difference on the sexual level can also be extended to the legal recognition level, so that one may result in marriage, the other never will.

- Collapse -
Once, again, you're confused.
Feb 26, 2004 6:29AM PST

There is no connection between the ability to produce children with the legal contract of marriage.

Why is that so difficult for some to grasp?

Dan

- Collapse -
You missed my point, but you do that a lot. (nt)
Feb 26, 2004 6:51AM PST

.

- Collapse -
You're saying that the
Feb 26, 2004 10:36PM PST

mechanics of people's sexual congress is a factor in granting a marriage license. Is that your point?

Dan

- Collapse -
Re: Hets and *****
Feb 26, 2004 3:25AM PST

Hi, James.

So basically you're an Appolonarist -- sexuality is inherently evil, and only justified by the possibility of procreation? Again, what about elderly couples past that age -- they're just mired in lust?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
So quick to define?
Feb 26, 2004 5:47AM PST

If I point out the sun comes up for half a day will you try and define me as a sun worshipper? If I say I enjoy the sound of rain will I fit into some strictly defined mold you want to believe in? I point out one basic difference between hets and ***** and you mistakenly take that as an all inclusive excuse to try and pigeonhole me with some trite label? Sorry, you will have to try harder than that, and I would advise you to also realize that making a positive statement about one condition does not also make it an exclusionary statement against other possibilities of differences.

- Collapse -
What is it that differentiates gay marriage from nambla?
Feb 24, 2004 4:24AM PST

Can't all the same arguments be used?

- Collapse -
No
Feb 24, 2004 4:40AM PST

Gay marriage is between consenting [b}adults.

NAMBLA advocates sex between men and boys (minors). Being minors they are unable to consent. This has nothing to do with the bible either supporting or condemning the practice.

- Collapse -
and if the parents give their consent?
Feb 24, 2004 4:47AM PST

On what basis do we say it's wrong? As a matter of fact, on what basis is a minor's freedom restricted?

- Collapse -
The capacity of a minor to make intelligent and
Feb 24, 2004 4:52AM PST

well informed, mature choices.

It is wrong for adults to engage in sex with minors no matter the sexual orientation of the participants.

This argument digresses greatly from the original topic of discussion.