Welcome to Missouri!

[PT]

The Next big anti-homosexual state.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/ballotissueresults.asp?eid=116

I'm so fucking ashamed right now.

Constitutional Amendment 2
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman?

Precincts Reporting 3636 of 3992

Marriage Definition

Yes 938,286 69.9%

No 403,872 30.1%

Total Votes 1,342,158

 

[ResearchMonkey]

That's NOT anti-homosexual.

I do think it speak volumes about what people think thoo.

 

[freako104]

what is there to be ashamed of? it is their own beliefs and(please dont take this the wrong way PT) but it is in the Bible Belt. around here in MD it is more diverse.

 

[Sharky]

Well, look at it this way, PT - at least your state has figured out how to accurately count votes.

 

[PT]

That's NOT anti-homosexual.

Wanna try explaining to me how this is NOT anti-homosexual? The people that voted for this amendment are the very people that shouldn't have a say in something like this. Marriage should not be a government instituition. It is an institution between two people.

I do think it speak volumes about what people think thoo.

OH I agree with you there. It does speak volumes. It speaks just how bigoted and self-rightous the average citizen of this state is.

What this has done for me is to weaken the word marriage, not strengthen it by any means. Gay couples are not second class citizens and to put something like this in our states constitution has done nothing good for our state.

Well, look at it this way, PT - at least your state has figured out how to accurately count votes.

True, but that doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.

 

[Gonz]

I'm so fucking ashamed right now.

Why?

The residents of Missouri are only defending what they believe. They don't have your enlightened permissiveness. They think that 5000 years of history means something. Unlike, what is it, 30 or 40 years of crystal new ageism? They know a family consists of a father a mother & children. They also know that those things cannot exist through homosexuality. Mankind ends with pure homosexuality. Marriage has a definition. It shouldn't be changed because it hurts someones feelings.

 

[PT]

Why?

The residents of Missouri are only defending what they believe.

The residents of Missouri are doing what their celibate priests and bible-thumping ministers are telling them to do.

They don't have your enlightened permissiveness. They think that 5000 years of history means something. Unlike, what is it, 30 or 40 years of crystal new ageism?

Oh, that's right, gayness just started happening. http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/eighteen.htm

They know a family consists of a father a mother & children. They also know that those things cannot exist through homosexuality. Mankind ends with pure homosexuality. Marriage has a definition. It shouldn't be changed because it hurts someones feelings.

Oh that's right, if we allow gay marriage, then EVERYONE will marry their gay partners and there will be no more children. Thanks for clearing that up there, Gonz.

 

[Gonz]

Oh, that's right, gayness just started happening

That 2500 year old Roman -tome about homosexual marriage is still a best seller

 

[PT]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayhistbib.html#c3

Wanna try some of those? What?, I think some of those predate your precious Roman Tome.

 

[Gonz]

I forgot to add this part

The residents of Missouri are doing what their celibate priests and bible-thumping ministers are telling them to do.

So only brainwashed heathens following the orders of jesuit legionnaires voted to deny homosexuals a word and the rest are incapable of such an unorthodox condition as voting their conscience?

 

[Gonz]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayhistbib.html#c3

Wanna try some of those? What?, I think some of those predate your precious Roman Tome.

Are of them are discussing homosexual marraige? Marriage and homosexuality, are indeed discussed. Yet the twain shall not meet.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The residents of Missouri are doing what their celibate priests and bible-thumping ministers are telling them to do.

Once again, an attack on religion in general, and those who follow the teachings of their religion in particular. Low blow, and totally off the mark. Look up the word marriage in the dictionary, and take a long gander at the preferred definition. I, myself, lost respect for the gay and lesbian groups when they were offered 'civil unions', with the same rights and responsibilities of marriage, and they turned it down. They aren't trying to build themselves up at this point, they're trying to tear something else down. By the same token, I can say that the reason you are so upset over this, and blaming the religious, is because you are following the creed of the gay and lesbian union's gospel, and deciding that the morals and decisions of the majority are inherantly wrong.

 

[freako104]

The residents of Missouri are doing what their celibate priests and bible-thumping ministers are telling them to do.

isnt that what a Christian is supposed to do? follow what the minister says? besides they have their beliefs and feel homosexuality is wrong.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Well the bottom line is that an overwhelming majority of citizen feel two homosexuals shouldn't get the title marrige.

Welcome to democracy in action.

(ever wonder why the left uses the courts to seek their socialist ways?)

 

[rrfield]

The government shouldn't be marrying anyone.

 

[Gonz]

A loud & substantial NO (well, yes actually but you know what I mean)

Constitutional Amendment 2 Precincts Reporting 3992 of 3992
Marriage Definition Yes 1,054,235 70.7%
No 437,563 29.3%
Total Votes 1,491,798

rrfield-that is the only argument with any merit. The one question is, does the communty have a say as to what happens in said community?

 

[freako104]

welll yes Gonz. It is their community after all. they live there and raise their families there.

 

[Rose]

Wanna try explaining to me how this is NOT anti-homosexual? The people that voted for this amendment are the very people that shouldn't have a say in something like this. Marriage should not be a government instituition. It is an institution between two people.

OH I agree with you there. It does speak volumes. It speaks just how bigoted and self-rightous the average citizen of this state is.

What this has done for me is to weaken the word marriage, not strengthen it by any means. Gay couples are not second class citizens and to put something like this in our states constitution has done nothing good for our state.

True, but that doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.

I agree with you. E verything you've said in this thread. I agree that by not granting the same priviledge/right (whatever y'all want to argue) of marriage to homosexual couples the government is thereby making them second-class citizens. I think it reeks of homophobia. Hell, I don't necessarily advocate homosexuality. I don't necessarily agree with it. And I don't necessarily find it not-repulsive. But that doesn't mean I give a rat's ass that others find it their cup of tea. And it's not for me to judge that they shouldn't be married or not.

 

[Gonz]

Well the bottom line is that an overwhelming majority of citizen feel two homosexuals shouldn't get the title marrige.

Welcome to democracy in action.

(ever wonder why the left uses the courts to seek their socialist ways?)

Whooda ever thunk it. As the people of Missouri have their say in the ballot booth, once again the people in Washington get a little help from their enlightened elite masters. I wonder who's to blame sin ce clearly the Judeo/Christians celibate priests bible-thumping ministers aren't the motivators.

SEATTLE - Gay couples can be married under Washington state law, because denying their right to do so is a violation of their constitutional rights, a judge ruled Wednesday.

No need for ballots here.

KATU

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Wanna try explaining to me how this is NOT anti-homosexual? The people that voted for this amendment are the very people that shouldn't have a say in something like this. Marriage should not be a government instituition. It is an institution between two people.

OH I agree with you there. It does speak volumes. It speaks just how bigoted and self-rightous the average citizen of this state is.

What this has done for me is to weaken the word marriage, not strengthen it by any means. Gay couples are not second class citizens and to put something like this in our states constitution has done nothing good for our state.

True, but that doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.

Sure I will.



This is not anti-homo for the simple fact that nothing has changed. They couldn’t before they can’t now. They made no laws against homos. Homo’s have the same and equal rights to the rite of marriage. If it going to be outside what the community accepts as the definition of marriage then it is something else. (Civil union’s maybe)

They simply chose to keep the tradition traditional.

Why does the homosexual feel entitled to it? Marriage has long been the base of the family unit, meaning production and rearing of off-spring. Where as the homosexual ‘family’ is mere cohabitation for the sake of company, as their can be nothing further biologically produced. If its about being lovers, then call it that! "Civil Lovers"

Family lends itself to such common phrases like

“Family traditions” where a specific, time honored, ritual is passed thru generations.

“Young family” a family that has just began to grow with the procreation of a child.

“Family outing” where the goal is to enrich the lives of the young people and tighten the bonds of the family.

“Family values” inciting the value ol’timey tradition and morality. (This does not include gay sex)

Homosexuality has become an accepted anomaly of human nature, especially among men, most people find plain wrong. Most people consider it to be dirty an un-natural and maybe even a sexual disfunction or addiction.

Since all a gay union can produce is another selfish week-end at the bath house, it is not the same. There is no possibility of biological growth, quite literally, it is a dead end.

Now comes the part where you call a homophobic. Wrong! I am not. But I do disagree with many of the rituals associatied with the practice. I feel the agenda of sexuality has done nothing but to diminsh the values we as Americans hold.

You’re disdain and vocal Christians persicution rings clear. Well, this democratic country was made by christiians not the homosexuals.