|
Post by Lesa on Jul 24, 2004 0:22:38 GMT -6
I hope that was before the wall came down, and such "accidents" don't still happen there. Lucky for us, if someone gets killed for being gay, it's called a "hate crime" and they try to bring the killer to justice. Of course, if the Bush administration had their way, I'm sure being gay would be a crime here.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 24, 2004 3:09:21 GMT -6
I don't mean to be a pain but, (sorry I don't know how to do that little brown box thing)
Lesignergirl said- Religious issues have no place in the government, which is why they wrote all that stuff about “freedom of religion” and “separation of church and state” into the Constitution in the first place."
Most people don't know this but the phrase is "freedom FROM religion". Which is a whole different thing. It means that the government cannot impose on you its idea of religious beliefs. Which I totally agree with. The minute my government tells me who or what to worship, I'm moving.
Along the same vein, I honestly don't see why my government should care about who is married to who, or who is sleeping with who. (Or is it Whom?) As long as it isn't physically or mentally abusive or damaging. G.W. Dorkboy (as I like to call him) and his cronies are just threatened by something that in my opinion isn't worth arguing over. Just get out there and vote, and thank whichever God/Goddess or neighborhood chicken you like that we won’t have to put up with him much longer. I hope.
Let them be and love who they will. Love is the one thing this country cannot afford to stomp on. I know it sounds corny but the Beetles had it right: “All you need is Love.”
Am I making sense here or just rambling again?
“Any ideology that needs to attack the thing that least threatens it is an ideology that will not outlive its own generation.” Unknown
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice but, there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” Elie Wiesel
|
|
|
Post by eirene on Jul 24, 2004 3:22:14 GMT -6
Yes, that happens before the wall broke down, as Germany was splittet in two parts ( the american and the russian sector ). At the first time, i go to the west ( Lübeck - its a city in Northgermany too ) over the border, i feld myself like Alice in the wonderland. A 1000% strange world with soooo many light and darkness and many more. For me and for every other citizen who came from the russian sector was that an absolutly hugh culture shock. You must imaging yourself : you go to bed and sleep and when you wake up - than is there a new system. All that you know is gone. I my childhood - where they tried to tell us that the USA are our/my enemy - i never believed such a lot of stupidness. At the school `Ideology` was my favorite thing. Than i could sleep or discuss with our teacher, but that wasn´t funny - the teacher always lost the discussion with me. ;D After the wall was down, i met her again on the street. She looked at me and all what said was: "you got right. You got right with everything you said and prophecide. Why did you knew it?!" "Its very simple. Changing is a constant in the mankind all over the world."
|
|
Bosatsu
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 73
|
Post by Bosatsu on Jul 24, 2004 9:39:36 GMT -6
What G.W.B said started to scare me, I'm not gay but hearing a president saying something like that makes me fear him. You americans have to make sure to vote him out.
|
|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Jul 24, 2004 13:58:13 GMT -6
I wonder what Bush would think if one of his daughter's was gay or one of this daughter's children. I really think people need to think about translating this all into a reality situation within your ownfamily. Do you want a family that is accepting and able to spend their time doing more constructiive things together or a family guarded by disgust/hatred uanable to be comfortable around each other because of the bigotry. Or not associating with each other at all? What purpose does that serve? Irene
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 25, 2004 1:03:14 GMT -6
[quote]Text to quote [/quote] It sounds like the 1 st amendment promises both, but I do agree with you that freedom from religion seems to be the issue here, since the Bush administration are trying to impose laws on us based on Bush supporters' religious beliefs. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree 100% with your post, scrappy, and I love those quotes. I would love to wake up tomorrow without hate and bigotry in the world. It would take some time to get used to it, but I think I could manage. I'll do my part. Well said, Irene. Sadly, if one of them turned out to be gay, I doubt she would admit it to herself, worrying that she would probably go to Hell or something. It's sad that so many people who call themselves Christians, a religion that's supposed to be about love, spend so much time hating and teaching others to hate. Why can't everyone just concern themselves with things that actually hurt people, instead of being the ones to hurt others who would otherwise be happy if they weren't imposing their beliefs on them? Are they misguided, jealous, or both?
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 25, 2004 1:15:36 GMT -6
I think, terrified of that which they cannot and should not control. But that is just my small opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jul 25, 2004 1:42:04 GMT -6
The vote, IMO, has nothing to do with religion. Our constitution says that government and religion are separate, as it should be. If the proposal is ever passed, I'm sure there will be ministers who will marry gay couples and that marriage will be recognized in their church. And vice versa. If gay marriages are legalized by the government, there will still be religions who will not recognize those marriages. The issue here, I think, has everything to do with money.
If the government legalizes gay marriages, then that allows the partners in that marriage to receive the health benefits, social security benefits, tax breaks and survivor benefits that those in heterosexual marriages now receive. The Bush administration stand behind anything that would give the average citizen a bit of a break? Never.
|
|
|
Post by eirene on Jul 25, 2004 1:56:57 GMT -6
Before a few days, a great german politican has have his coming out. Here are sooooo many majors, actors, actress and politicans gay. I mean, it hurts nobody, if they can marriage, or? Before 1000 years nobody said "that isn´t right, what you doing"! So many sultans, kings and queens was gay in history...! (like King Edward 2. from england) Eirene
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 25, 2004 1:58:01 GMT -6
I think that’s a good bet. I wholeheartedly agree with you there, Phalon. I’m sure that if the majority of their financial supporters were gay, then they would legalize it. Likewise, I feel that their push to ban it is a political move, to make Bush’s religious supporters happy in this election year.
|
|
|
Post by eirene on Jul 25, 2004 2:12:50 GMT -6
I’m sure that if the majority of their financial supporters were gay, then they would legalize it. Likewise, I feel that their push to ban it is a political move, to make Bush’s religious supporters happy in this election year. I´m 1000% agree with you, Les Eirene
|
|
|
Post by marysgurl1 on Jul 25, 2004 3:36:45 GMT -6
Phalon.....well said, my friend. As a gay , middle-aged woman that has been in 2 10-year relationships--& now the one that will last thruout eternity-- I know too well the financial limitations gay couples learn to muddle thru. Unfortunately, there will always be hate, & sadness, & hurt, & lonliness--all steming from ignorance. It seems like some people work so hard to make life difficult for others. Pity all that energy isn't focused on peace & acceptance..... I shall also do my part in this election.
|
|
Kiwi
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 42
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 26, 2004 19:50:44 GMT -6
I wonder how cheney's (sp?) gay daughter feels about this issue. This is such a slippery slope issue. If marriage is allowed for gays, what issue will be next. Now before you all jump on me know that I am a 24 year old gay woman who is in a relationship that will last forever and we even have a foster child. I think that there should be something else for gays. Some sort of legal partnership. But what issue will be pressed next? Yeah, most things that people think will be pressed (i.e. marriage between human and animal, legalizing underage sex, etc) are immoral but so was homosexuality many years ago (of course it still is to some sects in the world). This is an issue that has many emotions tied to it and I don't see it comeing to any conclusion any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 27, 2004 4:18:16 GMT -6
I doubt very much that Bush thinks much at all. Did I say that? Boy that was a little catty. I apologize. Sort of. I just think that the man is going to end up alleviating us all of our most basic rights, getting us all killed or worse, if he gets relected. Attempting to ban Gay marriage is like trying to make it illegal to pick your nose. Come on...doesn't he have better things to worry about? I know I do. Sorry....I'm ranting. He just really makes me angry!
|
|
|
Post by eirene on Jul 27, 2004 4:29:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Jul 29, 2004 12:00:34 GMT -6
Interesting.....about 4 months ago when I visted John Kerry's website he had links about gay and lesbian community. If it's still there it's more concealed. www.johnkerry.com/issues/civil_rights/Of course I do understand he's not for marriage but would allow the states to determine for themselves. I think! We'll see if it comes up tonight in his speech at the Democratic Convention. . I notice that John Edwards didn't mention it at all last night. It was more about race issues. Nothing was mentioned about the gay community. Of course it shouldn't be that since Bush is against it that they should be for it. Irene
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 29, 2004 15:12:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Jul 29, 2004 16:41:36 GMT -6
Le,
There used to be a direct link to LGBT where all the other links are listed on his home page. I do realize that both Kerry and Edwards are for civil unions. I assume Bush isn't even for that? I don't know for sure. Also I thought that Kerry and Edwards (when they were campaigning separately for the nod) were for the state level to decide. I don't know how that would work if one state approved and then a couple moved to a state that didn't approve gay marraige.
I thought LGBT meant Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered? I don't know because I don't keep up with it personally.
Irene
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 29, 2004 19:04:37 GMT -6
That sounds about right. It's too bad there isn't a direct link to it from the main page. I had to use the search feature to find it. Feb 5, 2004 I don't think Bush is for civil unions. You know, it's too bad the press and everyone jumped on Dean for his pep rally. I didn't really know anything about the guy until recently, and I think he could've been good for the U.S. Exeter Newsletter
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 29, 2004 19:42:32 GMT -6
Geeze, I forgot to answer a few posts earlier. Sorry about that. But first, an additional note to Irene. In some states, it's legal for 16-year-olds to get married if they're expecting a baby and have parental consent, and I believe it's recognized in states that don't have that law. So on that note, I would think that a gay marriage in a state that doesn't marry gay couples should still be recognized. I wonder how cheney's (sp?) gay daughter feels about this issue. This is such a slippery slope issue. If marriage is allowed for gays, what issue will be next. Now before you all jump on me know that I am a 24 year old gay woman who is in a relationship that will last forever and we even have a foster child. I think that there should be something else for gays. Some sort of legal partnership. But what issue will be pressed next? Yeah, most things that people think will be pressed (i.e. marriage between human and animal, legalizing underage sex, etc) are immoral but so was homosexuality many years ago (of course it still is to some sects in the world). This is an issue that has many emotions tied to it and I don't see it comeing to any conclusion any time soon. I didn't even realize Cheney's daughter was gay. So I searched the web, and I found out that she rallied to get gay/lesbian votes 4 years ago and is helping with the campaign again this year. I also found the website, dearmary.com, where people telling Mary to stand up to Dick, and has apparently gotten a lot of press. Their little pink cartoon on the right sums it up pretty good. It says, "Anti-gay for PAY.”I still don't understand your position on this, Kiwi, and don't see a difference between a marriage and a "civil union," except that a civil union may not receive the same rights as a marriage, and do you really want that? The question I think we should ask isn't what would be next if they DO allow gay marriage, but what would be next if they DON'T. They finally allowed same-sex SEX in Texas earlier this year. If they pass an amendment that bans gay marriages, how do we know they won't re-enact the anti-sodomy law? Not that I engage in that, mind you, but shouldn't that be my choice and not the government's? And before you say it, sex with sheep or small children should never be a choice. Not only is it disgusting, but children are too young to consent, and I've never known anyone who could read a sheep's mind or translate their baaaah's. In all seriousness, I respect your right to decide against marriage with your mate, just as I think every adult human couple, heterosexual, gay, or bisexual, should be able to make their own choice. If they ban gay marriages, then what? Who would hermaphrodites marry? Are they going to take your foster child away for living with two mommies? I certainly hope not, because you all seem very lucky to have each other. I doubt very much that Bush thinks much at all. Did I say that? Boy that was a little catty. I apologize. Sort of. Don't you mean “apolologize?” Your apology wouldn't mean much if you don't speak in a language he can understand. I just think that the man is going to end up alleviating us all of our most basic rights, getting us all killed or worse, if he gets relected. Attempting to ban Gay marriage is like trying to make it illegal to pick your nose. Come on...doesn't he have better things to worry about? I know I do. Sorry....I'm ranting. He just really makes me angry! *Picks nose and smears it on a picture of Dubya.* I know exactly how you feel. I would say, that the politicans they have a gay doughter (LIKE F. Müntefering here in Germany) or son, that they have a "reason" to be tolerant. Very often they help for a better understanding between gays and "normal" people. There are so many gays in our politic - but only the CDU (christian democratic party) as a big problem with this. NOT with the members, they used they for the political power of the own party. No, only if the members say :We want to live as gay people! Thats bigotry or isn´t? Eirene Unfortunately, having a gay daughter hasn't made Cheney any more tolerant. Either that, or his position on the matter doesn't matter to the Bush administration. I definitely see Bush's position on the matter as bigotry. But then, I could tell he was a bigot when he made his campaign speeches 4 years ago, when he basically said he could care less about the welfare of other countries. I knew he would turn other countries against us, I just didn't realize it was going to be as bad as it has been.
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 29, 2004 19:50:44 GMT -6
Irene, I think the missing link to the LGBT must've been an oversight. Here is a list of communities that I haven't seen a link to anywhere, and the link to this page wasn't on the homepage, either. JohnKerry.com/communities
|
|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Jul 29, 2004 20:30:46 GMT -6
yup dick cheyney's daughter is gay and she does have that web site but since Bush decided things Cheyney has been quiet. Bush is a pompous ignorant man. I pity anyone of his grandchildren who happen to be gay if that, per chance, ever happens. Irene
|
|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Jul 29, 2004 20:43:12 GMT -6
Sharpton's speech: www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-28-2004/0002220697&EDATE=BOSTON, July 28 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a transcript of The Reverend Al Sharpton's speech before the Democratic National Convention: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Assembled Delegates, Honored Guests and Friends: Throughout the history of this nation, Americans have fought to protect our freedoms at home and to secure our nation against foreign and domestic threat. We gather tonight in Boston where 228 years ago, people fought to establish American freedom. At that time, the first person to die in the Revolutionary War was a Black man from Barbados, Crispus Attucks, who is buried not far from this Fleet Center. Forty years ago, in 1964, Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic party stood at the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City fighting to preserve voting rights for all Americans and all Democrats, regardless of race or gender. Hamer's stand led to Dr. King marching in Selma, which inspired the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Twenty years ago, Rev. Jesse Jackson stood at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco, again, appealing to the preservation of those freedoms. Tonight, we stand with those freedoms at risk and our security as citizens in question. I have come here tonight to say, that the only choice we have to protect and preserve our freedoms at this point in history is the election of John Kerry as the president of the United States. I stood with both John Kerry and John Edwards on over 30 occasions during the primary season. I debated them. I watched them. I observed their deeds. I am convinced that they are men who say what they mean and mean what they say. I am also convinced that at a time, when there is a vicious spirit in the body politic of this country that attempts to undermine America's freedoms - our civil rights, and civil liberties - we must leave this city and go forth and organize this nation toward victory for John Kerry and John Edwards in November. This is not just about winning an election, it's about preserving the principles upon which this nation was founded. Look at the current view of our nation worldwide and the results of our unilateral foreign policy. We went from unprecedented international support and solidarity on September 12, 2001, to hostility and hatred as we stand here tonight. How did we squander the opportunity to unite the world for democracy and to commit to a global fight against hunger and disease? We did it with ago-it-alone foreign policy based on flawed intelligence. We were told that we were going into Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction. We've lost hundreds of soldiers. We've expended over 200 billion dollars at a time when we face record state deficits. And when it became clear, that the weapons were not there, the president sought to shift the purpose of the war and to challenge our patriotism. We are also faced with the prospect, in the next four years, that two or more of the Supreme Court Justice seats will become available. This year, as we celebrated the anniversary of Brown vs. the Board of Education, this court voted 5 to 4 on critical issues of women's rights and civil rights. It is frightening to think that the gains of the civil and women's rights movements of the last century could be reversed if this administration sits in the White House for four more years. This is not about a party. It is about living up to the promise of America. The promise of America says that we will guarantee quality education for all children, and not spend more for metal detectors than computers in our schools. The promise of America guarantees health care for all of its citizens, anddoes not force seniors to travel to Canada to buy prescription drugs they cannot afford here. The promise of America provides that those who work in our health care system can afford to be hospitalized in the very beds that they clean everyday. The promise of America is government that does not seek to regulate your behavior in the bedroom but to guarantee your right to provide food in the kitchen. The promise of America is that we stand for human rights - whether it's fighting slavery in Sudan, AIDS in Lesotho, or police brutality in this country. The promise of America is one immigration policy for all who seek to enter our shores, whether they come from Mexico, Haiti, or Canada. The promise of America is that every citizen's vote is counted and protected, and election schemes do not decide elections. I often hear the Republican party preach about family values, but I can tell them something about family values. Family values don't just exist for those with two-car garages and retirement plans. Family values exist in homes with only one parent in the household making a way against the odds. I stand here tonight, the product of a single parent home, from the depths of Brooklyn, New York. My mother was a domestic worker who scrubbed floors in other people's homes for me. And because she scrubbed those floors, I was proud to stand as a presidential candidate. Those are family values. I recall that a few days after the September 11 terrorist attacks I was in a radio station that played "America the Beautiful," as sung by Ray Charles. As you know, we lost Ray several weeks ago, but I can still hear him singing: "Oh beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountains majesty, above the fruited plain." We must leave here committed to making Ray Charles' song a reality and to making America beautiful for everyone. Good night, God bless you all, and God bless America!
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 29, 2004 22:16:17 GMT -6
*cheers wildly*That was a great speech!
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 30, 2004 0:19:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 30, 2004 2:51:01 GMT -6
Very true. My spelling ability is atrocus…….atroe….horrible. But at least I can SPEAK my own language with a modicum of success. And I don’t make up my own words. Good choice. But I have to ask myself…….why do you even have a picture of him in the first place. Unless of course you were using it for dart practice. I agree. I doubt they would ever admit it to him if they were. Thanks for the speech….I really don’t like Sharpton, but that was a great speech. Am I wrong....or doesn't a DUI conviction prevent him from holding office? Too bad we didn't know this before.
|
|
|
Post by piper on Jul 30, 2004 5:58:44 GMT -6
Actually that story was released the first time Bush ran against Gore. In fact, he was honest about and said that he didn't live a model life in his early adult years.
I have problems too with the government trying to tamper with the constitution. Somebody asked about state's rights on here, and it was amusing to me when Democrats say, that the states should decide if they want same sex marriages or civil unions. It's amusing because first of all, they want to have an ambiguos stance on the issue, and secondly, Democrats don't traditionally believe in states right. They believe that everything should be mandated from the federal government. What if a state wants to have their own healthcare system or what if a state wants to get prescription drugs from another country so that their citizens could save money on subscription drugs? I remember in California they wanted to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes and they passed a law to do so, but then the federal government came in and said that they couldn't do that.
Usually Democrats say that "states rights" is a code word for racism and as in the examples I just gave, it clearly is not. Anyways back to the thread, I do have problems with the President's stance on same sex marriages, and being the strict constitutionalist that I am, I think it's dead wrong trying to tamper with it and adding this amendment to it. I like the constitution just the way it is fine thank you. LOL! However saying that, I happen to like Bush's stance on economic issues and the war on terrorism. Nothing against Mr. Kerry, I'm sure he's a fine person, but I believe his political phylosophy, and his past record on defense, is not the right thing to do right now, because of the war on terrorism. If I'm wrong, it's my right to be.
|
|
|
Post by eirene on Jul 30, 2004 10:22:18 GMT -6
Who can it disturb, if the gaymarriage is allowed?! There are so many people (like politicans, actress and actors, singer, honors and so on ) gay. And most of them have a really importend professionalship...! It hurts nobody, and its no reason to slay one human down - only he has the wrong color or gender. "read the bible" is almost the only answer, they i became from such people. BUT what they never realized is, THAT the bible was written by HUMANS!!! NO one word (eccept the beginning from Genesis) cames from god or jesus. And the only book, that was original written by jesus is ´til today a heresy for the catholican church in Rome. Also, WHY in heck must that disturb or hurts a human, if that don´t interesting god?! At the end - all humans are same before his eyes. Eirene
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 30, 2004 17:47:44 GMT -6
People who throw the bible stuff out there should read it once in a while.
I also reccomend the Nostic Gospels and the Gospels of Mary Magdalen. Not part of the bible but good stuff anyway.
|
|
|
Post by eirene on Jul 30, 2004 19:16:11 GMT -6
People who throw the bible stuff out there should read it once in a while. I didn´t say, that the bible is out. I said, that the people, they believe to jugde about a other human, must considered that they people whi written this great book that they was only too humans. No god, no angel only humans with errors and weakness like all the other people too they haved lived before and since them. The bible isn´t a direction for use - that can only be your own life. Or i´m wrong?! I can´t remember myself, that god has ever ask me that and i was almost dead in my life. Eirene :chakram
|
|