Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage defeated in Senate

[Mr. Saturn]

<a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49537-2004Jul14%20&notFound=true>PWN3D.</a>

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

thank goodness

there's still hope for us, swampy <img src=smilies/liefde.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</img></P>

[IceWolf20]

> PWN3D.

Can someone please tell me why the fuck this is even an issue....or at the very least such a HUGE issue when there are much more important and RELEVENT issues that really need to be addressed....oh I don't know, like the economy, jobs, the kind of shit that affects EVERYONE in this country. If they want to get married....fuck it....let them get married. Heterosexuals have been fucking up marriage for so long now, homosexuals may as well have a shot at it too.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[WhyteKnight]

> thank goodness

Indeed.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

[Fla Flash]

You, my friend, rock. Best response I've seen here in a while.
<img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Diary of a Vigilante III...The Homecoming.. (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[Octocrook]

> PWN3D.

Republicans who voted to block the amendment were Susan M. Collins (Maine), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), John E. Sununu (N.H.), Lincoln D. Chafee (R-I.), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.) and John McCain (Ariz.).

I'm tellin ya...McCain for President 2004. Fuck the naysayers! Especially at a time like this when the president is trying to pull more and more support to get reelected, for any of the Republican senators to vote against their party is bold indeed (as are the Dems that voted against theirs), but I've always noticed McCain especially following his own rationale and thought on every single issue. If only the guy was a strong speaker...he might have had a chance in 2000 to make it past the primaries.

<P ID="signature"><center>
<a href=http://www.crooky.us>Music</a>
Everything's gonna be okay. If not today, tomorrow.</center></P>

[mrfreeze]

I would vote for McCain over Kerry. I may disagree with McCain on several things, but at least he sticks by what he stands for. Which is more than I can say lately of anyone else in this damn race.


<P ID="signature"><image src=http://imageshack.us/files/donsig2.gif></P>

[Goku]

oh I don't know, like the economy, jobs,
> the kind of shit that affects EVERYONE in this country.

It is a side issue that the republicans want to bring to the front. They want to shore up their christian right base. Also, if they got the issue far enough, they can point how immoral democrats are for blocking amendment. Further, they probaly hope if the issue got big and got major media time it would stop deep discussion or even block all the issues you talking about (which the republicans are bad on).

<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P>

[Gavin_86]

<center>http://images.ucomics.com/comics/sc/2004/sc040714.gifword</a></center>

<P ID="signature"><center>I'm just a Paranoid Android watching through my superb crystal viewing glass

.::http://gavin.panicus.orgGavin.Panicus.org</a> ::.</center></P>

C:Serverxampphtdocszopharoldwwwthreadsattachmentsh ttp://images.ucomics.com/comics/sc/2004/sc040714.gif

[Danoz]

> I would vote for McCain over Kerry. I may disagree with
> McCain on several things, but at least he sticks by what he
> stands for. Which is more than I can say lately of anyone
> else in this damn race.

How does Bush not "stick by what he stands for?". He does, you just don't agree with what he stands for.


<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Danoz]

> PWN3D.

I'm more upset about the power we're letting this activist judges have over the failure of the amendment itself. We shouldn't have to be amending the constitution, it should be the other way around.

And as I've said before, a civil partnership of some kind would be fine by me. The artical did have a fairly blatent lie, "But opinion polls generally show that most Americans agree with Kerry and Edwards in opposing same-sex marriage and a constitutional amendment to bar it, and some strategists question whether Bush and other Republicans are taking a risk in pushing the amendment." -- which isn't true. Opinion polls are strongly in favor of not allowing homosexual marriage.

This is a slippery slope. When the homosexual movement originated, they had the goals of legalizing homosexual marriage, legalizing polygamy and abolishing the age of concent. We're doing a good job of pushing the ball in that direction. Pretty sick if you ask me. This isn't about loving people wanting to get marriage, that's the spin the Democratic party has put on this. Gay couples have as many rights as the rest of us without marriage. They can even have marriages. All they want in this is a piece of paper that pushes the envolope towards bigger issues.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Fla Flash]

That's not what you said last night!<img src=smilies/cry.gif>













<img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif>
Jesus. Joke, by the way.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Diary of a Vigilante III...The Homecoming.. (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[thegodofhellfire]

> This is a slippery slope. When the homosexual movement
> originated, they had the goals of legalizing homosexual
> marriage, legalizing polygamy and abolishing the age of
> concent.

I'd be interested to know exactly where you got that particular nugget of insight from, because I really can't see the link between the latter two propositions and this "homosexual movement".

<P ID="signature"></P>

[icenine0]

Ah, you're aware that the slippery slope (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html) is a logical fallacy, right? Using it to describe your own case is counterproductive.

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[Danoz]

> Ah, you're aware that the slippery slope is a logical
> fallacy, right? Using it to describe your own case is
> counterproductive.

Not when the objective is clear. If you let a lion chew on your leg it will make it's way to your jugular. Same thing with the ACLU, we remove little crosses and symbols because it may seem harmless, but they WANT much more, and giving way to this small things is only the first step.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Ugly Joe]

> Not when the objective is clear. If you let a lion chew on
> your leg it will make it's way to your jugular.

Not if your leg is made of poison <img src=smilies/retard.gif>

<P ID="signature"></P>

[icenine0]

I believe you missed the point. Did you even read the page?

"This sort of 'reasoning' is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim."

An argument consists of a hypothesis and supporting evidence. So far, you're only one out of two.

Why is their objective clear? How is their objective clear? When did the "homosexual movement" (if there is such a thing) ever claim a desire to legalize polygamy and abolish the age of consent? Links, data, facts, etc.

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[Lillymon]

> This is a slippery slope. When the homosexual movement
> originated, they had the goals of legalizing homosexual
> marriage, legalizing polygamy and abolishing the age of
> concent. We're doing a good job of pushing the ball in that
> direction. Pretty sick if you ask me.

Man, and I thought I was spouting some crazy shit after downing those two Red Bulls last night. But this? Danoz, what the FUCK are you on?!?

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Mr. Saturn]

<img src=http://66.96.177.64/picture_hosting/web_pages/therippa/fark/cyansis.jpg>

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

[MooglyGuy]

http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html

<P ID="signature">http://www.zophar.net/Files/mooglish.png
"Kupo, motherfucker!! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"</P>

[Lenophis]

> Why is their objective clear? How is their objective clear?
> When did the "homosexual movement" (if there is such a
> thing) ever claim a desire to legalize polygamy and abolish
> the age of consent? Links, data, facts, etc.

They all have a point Danoz. Think about this for a second... You clearly want gay marriage gone and never again heard from. I know why you want it gone, but you want it gone just based solely on religion. Can you offer any evidence that isn't religious based/biased? I'll bet not, because I've only seen the religious biased wanting gay marriage banned and unconstitutional, which itself would be unconstitutional. But I'm not getting into that right now.

The point, Danoz, is that you want gay marriage gone based solely on religious grounds. Decisions and laws based on, or directly tied to religion, is not constitutional. You already know that, yet you say this isn't religious based. Your two statements don't mix, so clear the air...

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>