OK, now the hypocrisy is blatant.
Many advocates of homo "marriage" claim that opponents are simply religious fundamentalists whose opposition is rooted only in out-of-date customs. virtual shamanism. Most Americans --- including many who would favor "civil unions" --- recognize that homos and their apologists are simply trying the denigrate the language by changing the meaning of the word.
So why is it SF's City Attorney claims that the Constitution requires that homos deserve to have their relationships "sanctified"?
My thesaurus says "sanctified" means "blessed," or "made holy."
Gee, sounds a little like religious custom to me.
But then again, maybe the far Left's war on language is now extending to religious, as well.
Gays are NOT being denied any rights....any gay man can marry a woman or lesbian woman can marry a man...just the same as a straight man or woman can marry. I (a straight male) cannot marry a gay man either. Equal. NO discrimination. The leftists insist on pushing this gay marriage down America's throat; though most oppose it. It is going to blow up in their faces.
I think it is a question of equal protection under the law. The equal protection clause to the 14th Amendment which says that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The laws in this Country give two people who are married special treatment, they are granted lower taxes, better healthcare, extra Social Security if the spouse dies, etc., etc.
Same sex partners are currently not allowed the same protection from our government.
Therefore, it is unconstitutional to not allow marrage to any couple who, other than gender, would have been allowed it.
What are you homophobes so afraid of anyway. Why do you insist on punishing people for there sexual orientation. I just think it is a waste of your limited time in this life to be so angry at someone else's inability to fit your idea of a proper sexual relationship.
My guess is that you are Married and screwing around on your wife. What others do is so important to you, isn't it.
When people stop fearing the unknown, love forces hate out the door. What amazes most about those who claim to be devotees of Christianity is their un-Jesus like attitudes towards others. Remember compassion? Tolerance? Love? When did religion stop advocating those ideals?
Frankly, I wish there were more gay men -- the less competition, the better!
You apparently wish to confuse "tolerance" with "acceptance."
I do not.
You're right. It's your choice. But my choice is to tolerate it AND accept it. There are too many other more dangerous things in this world to concern my energy than whether 2 men want to fall in love and get married.
As long as the relationships were equal in the eyes of the law, I think you could get broad agreement with just about any names. Since I am sure you suggested the idea in a spirit of openness and trying to get to agreement, perhaps we could talk about "hetroMarriages" and homoMarriages" in the future.
Perhaps the SF City attorney is wrong. I don't have to agree with his use of the word to agree with recognizing unions between people of the same sex that have rights, obligations, and legal teeth.
While I may not be part of a religion you are comfortable with (I'm a Unitarian), I consider myself religious and I have been active for many years. I am sure your religion is important to you and I for one don't want to see it denegrated or disrespected. My major concern with some other denominations is that they try to impose their belief on me. I don't think that recognizing same-sex unions in civil society denegrates existiing marriages. If you consider yourself married before God and in your church, it doesn't matter what any other people call their relationships -- God will certainly know the difference (assuming God sees a difference).
Have a good day...Harry
-- Modified on 2/20/2004 10:50:35 AM
You're beginning to get it, though we already have words:
Heterosexual unions: "marriage."
Homosexual trysts: "perversion."
You may disagree with the latter, but you can hardly rationally dispute the former.
Actually, Perversion is also defined as "an aberrant sexual practice that is preferred to normal intercourse". I guess that means that when you came in a woman's mouth or DATY or did greek then you are a pervert. I looked at your reviews: does that sound like James mother's little boy?
Join the perverts club James. The rest of us welcome you!!
Don't you just LOVE it when she starts sucking you really hard when you are explooding in her mouth or she licks you when the head of your cock is tingling with sensation? Do you SHIVER when she squezes the muscles in her ass when you start to climax? Do you feel like you are riding a tiger when she starts to buck while you are licking her clit and she starts an O? Does even thinking about these things make you hard? Then you are a pervert James.
So am I buddy. 
-- Modified on 2/20/2004 1:52:57 PM
-- Modified on 2/20/2004 1:55:08 PM
God gave us the gift of free will. Our use of such does not mean that our choices will necessarily be correct, appropriate or moral. Let us not forget the lesson to be learned from Adam and Eve and the concept of original sin. While they were given the gift, the Lord was not pleased by the decisions they made and they were cast out from the garden of Eden.
I couldn’t care less about gay marriages as long as they don’t have an adverse affect on the hobby.
-- Modified on 2/20/2004 9:24:27 AM
-- Modified on 2/20/2004 9:39:00 AM
Your use of the word "Homo" troubles me. You are obviously using this in a derogatory manner. What is it about gay people that makes you and others so angry? Are you afraid of them? It reminds me of the unfounded hatred people have/had for blacks in this country.
Those people that demean people that are gay shows that they are very insecure and fear that they might be "that way".
Acceptance is the key.
To answer your questions:
1. Their actions throwing their perverse behavior in my face. Frankly, I try not to think about them much, probably like most people. But their actions attempting to redefine simple terms of language and gain acceptance for their perversions forces me to respond.
2. No, but thank you for the standard homophiliac response to those who oppose their political agenda. I guess all Lefties "fear" conservatives. Quite a nice rhetorical trick, that; accuse your opponent of a dismissisve and emotional response, and then you don't have to deal with his arguments.
If someone lets you get away with it, that is.
In fact, I'm a bit of a righty myself - don't know what I'de do without my right hand. I just find people who try to tell others how to live to be very obnoxious.
My wish for those lefties - get your right hand out of your ass.
Neither do I - they have trouble taking me off the dribble and I find them predictable. A lefty like myself poses all sorts of problems. Best to call for a double right away to get them to give up the ball
from the middle!!
Doesn't everyone? (except me, hotdogs upset my stomach).
...If you remember the bit from SNL.
If my stomach could stand it, I'd eat about 10 big Italian sausages a day. Tee-he!
Ciara
I have a hybred German Schnitzel / with a touch of English Saugage / mixed with a Hebrew National that you might really enjoy. I will give you a chance to try it when I'm in Phoenix.
You bet, sweetie. I'm not a racist. I like any dog as long as it's cleaned and seasoned just right.
Hugs,
Ciara
with a pepsi...of course
Cheers!
The fact is, the SF City attorney is a bit too full of himself, if he sees that ANY marriage that is carried out by a Government Body, is in fact "sanctified". What he SHOULD have said is "legitimized" rather than "sanctified". Because a same sex marriage performed by a civil entity is no more nor less legitimate than a heterosexual one, as based on the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, and the California State Constitution at this time. But neither one is sanctified, because our governing bodies are not religious authorities, and only a religious authority can bless or make holy anything. Nonetheless, this misstatement has MUCH more to do with an overly self-important view of government in our lives, than it does with any difference between how that government does and should treat gays as opposed to straight members of society.
That being said, you're hateful attitudes and continual slurring of an entire group of people simply because you are a homophobe is getting very tiresome.
In a post yesterday, sdstud promised to ignore me.
He refuses to keep his promise.
I won't call him a "liar," the far Left's charge against GHWB when he didn't keep his "no new taxes" pledge, but I will observe that sdstud cannot be trusted.
Since you had shown yourself to be a hate-mongering homophobe. Of course, you being Mr. Semantics should have picked up that subtle difference, but you are too obtuse to have caught it. As long as you keep spouting hatred, I will continue to goad you into showing your true colors, so OTHERS can SAFELY ignore your mean-spirited bile.
-- Modified on 2/20/2004 11:37:51 AM
I don't think the Constitution can or does "sanctified" anything. I fact its forbidden. As our defination of "marriage" comes from religion and/or religous traditions, I believe the state can recognize and register marriage. For my first marriage, we filed the paper work with the city registrar, but the marriage was performed by a Priest.
If your church allows same sex marriage, I have no right to question it. I think those of us on the left may not like certain ideas like same sex marriage but as Americans we are obliged to stand up for the right of individuals to make their own decisions. Such of "I don't agree with you but I fight for you right to voice your opinion" ethic.
-> But then again, maybe the far Left's war on language is now extending to religious, as well.
The left has always embraced religion. The great leader of the left would include Jesus (a real long haired left wing pacifist peacenik ), the Buddha. More recently, Dr King, Gandhi, Dalai Lama, John Lennon and etc. Jesus' teaching did not provide any loopholes for violent behavior (like W Bush said it was ok). There are time in life where one may need to take up arms but you have to more heaven and earth to make peace first.
It seems the new christian right uses the notion of religion to bully people into their believes. Jesus came to save but these new kids are here to condemn.
I think most gays want to get married so that they can have the same rights (taxes, etc) as heteros. Don't think most care about being ``blessed''. At any rate, why the hell do you care !!!!!!!
That stupid ass Bush said something along the lines of ``we need to protect marriage''. How the hell does some m/m and w/w loving eachother threaten anyone else's marriage ? What, otherwise the divorce rate will increase from 50% to 51%.
James, you and Bush need to worry about your own damn selves and stay out of everyone else's love/hobbying business (besides, isn't Bush Sr. a homo - I mean he did marry George Washington's look alike).
It looks like your question is about a specific statement made by the SF mayor. You chose your title poorly: that's not a question to ALL homo marriage advocates. Most homo marriage advocates are not closely watching how one particular person (SF mayor) may or may not be putting his foot in his mouth occasionally.
But anyway, in answer to your question, it's possible that he means sanctified or blessed in a figurative sense. God isn't the only entity that "blesses." People can do it, and perhaps more importantly, government can do it. For government to bless or sanctify something, merely means to legitimize it, to not treat it as a special exception.
It's also interesting that you equate homo marriage advocacy with "far left." I thought the far left were the people who wanted to micromanage everyone's lives for the common good, in some sort of totalitarian Marxist vision, and the right wanted government smaller and less powerful and less involved in controlling our individual destinies.
I guess things get confusing when hypocrits get into power. Things make sense when Dems are in control, because then the Repubs argue for less government and actually pretend to be conservative. But when Repubs get in control, NOBODY acts conservative anymore. We're left with an election in November where we get to choose between two pro-strong-government candidates, so the issues will all be about trivial personal details instead of idealogy.
And yet, you have the nerve to accuse others of a war on language.
... indicate that you're suppressing something -- besides everyone else's right to the pursuit of happiness, that is lmfao
The San Francisco City Attorney probably doesn't have a clue what 'sanctified' means.
You might be right. More's to pity, since Lincoln noted that an attorney's time and words were his stock in trade.
But then again, he's already made clear that he doesn't know what "marriage" means, either.
Is your life really so empty that you have to be able to feel you have some power over the lives of others? The bottom line is that you should not be able to tell ME whom I can or cannot marry. Whether that person is white, black, gay, straight, or whatever... it's my life and my choice. I fully expect YOU to exercise the same level of control over your own life. This country is sick with the "You can't, because I say so," disease. Why not just live your own life and unless you are harmed in some way by another, let everyone else live theirs? Your morals are YOURS to live by. Not mine. (And if your morals are so closed minded, hon, what the heck are you doing HERE anyways?)
Sincerely,
Tamara