djpark121

Who knows what can happen in the U.S. After all, it was the first true democratic nation, where all types of people are supposed to get equal rights... .Of course homosexuality isn't against the law. Gay marriage is, which is the issue being discussed at present.

I know right. If gay people can get married, why shouldn't other types of people. Liberals are afraid to acknowledge this fact, so they dismiss it as an unlikely outcome. Well, to conservative eyes, gay marriage was never perceived to be a likely outcome.

Here is an article from the Washington Times on Scandinavia. Do we really want this to happen in the United States?

We need to draw that line here. I KNEW something like this would happen. This is getting to the point of absurdity, where all types of people are starting to demand rights. Pedophiles?? What do you have to say to that overdose, or are you too deluded to realize the enormity of this situation?

BD, if the way that marriage benefits society is through having children, starting a family, raising those kids to become strong members of society, how can gay people do that? Sure they can adopt, but how many of them are willling to? It doesn't make sense that they would adopt for one, because if a person wanted to have kids, they would have sex with someone of the opposite sex so they can have their own. You can't tell me that a person prefers adopting a kid over having their own. Now, heterosexual marriages obviously are not perfect and not all families turn out to be beneficial to society. But as I've said, the potential is there. With gay marriage, there is no potential. When I said rights are unalienable, I was merely referring what the DI stated. It is not my personal opinion that rights are unalienable. I still believe that rights, when abused should be taken away. The founding fathers failed to see that some of these unalienable rights would be used in the ways that they have been used today, and if they knew, they would've changed the DI and the Constitution accordingly.

I'd like to hear some reasoning as to why marriage strengthens society and how gay marriage would undermine that. I have never said that gay marriage would undermine society in anyway. What I actually said was that they lack the potential to strengthen society. As for the rights issue, should a government allow people to have rights if those rights are abused, or even pointless? Yes they are unalienable, but in my opinion, rights are to be used, and used correctly, otherwise they should not be held.

I don't know why people hold the belief that marriage is a church issue. Then again, it is really a matter of perception and how a couple wants to be recognized. If a couple wanted to be Catholic, they would not be recognized if they were married according to the state, unless they followed the Catholic procedure. Vice versa. Obviously gay couples want to be recognized by the state. The argument that gay people are being deprived of their rights is just silly. The only "right" they are being "deprived" of is marriage; they have the right to do everything else, including having sex. Sure marriage is a right, but as many people have pointed out so far, it's for promoting strong families, something gay people can't do. Rights should be rights only if people will use those rights and be conducive to society. The freedoms of speech, press, expression are all conducive and promoting to society, just to give a few examples. Yes, heterosexual marriages can turn out bad, and maybe even turn out to hurt society, but as Ender pointed out, marriage is something you have to work at and the potential is there. Gay marriage however, is in no way conducive to society and there is no potential to give back to the society that provides these rights, in terms of marriage. Yes, it's really about whether two people love each other, but three or twenty people can love each other too.

Well then, my point is proven. I wasn't aware that Mormons could practice polygamy in the U.S. however, which is the main country concerned. Those who practice polygamy might start demanding rights of married people. If we allow homosexuals to get the same rights of heterosexually married people, why can't those who practice polygamy get the same rights? They're "married," right? This is why an amendment to the marriage act must be ratified, to prevent confusion.

Very good points, righturnonred. Homosexuality does in fact appear to be a mental disease, and one that's uncontrollable, supposedly. No one can really tell another to change their sexual preferences because it is a biological inclination. However, marriage is ridiculous. Like you said, it mocks it. Like I have stated before, homosexuality opens many other doors that shouldn't be. Transexuality is considered a mental disorder and cannot be significantly differentiated from homosexuality. But should they be allowed to marry? What if people start switching genders and demanding the right to marry? This might be bizarre, but what if three people want to get married, all to each other as a group and want legal benefits for that? Folks, allowing homosexuals to marry could easily turn into chaos, disorder, and atrophy of the norm. Marriage is a beautiful thing, done correctly. Why must we taint and distort it?

Bush, yes the majority of those who oppose gay marriage might be Christians, and yes they might appear to be filled with hatred. That is unfortunate. Christianity innately preaches tolerance and even love for everyone. One of the sayings in Christianity is to hate the sin, but love the sinner, which I think is perfectly reasonable. However, many Christians can deviate from this type of thinking. I for one, have nothing against the homosexual and would not refrain from even getting to know some. However, I will always disapprove of a homosexuality. It is hard for me to say that homosexuality is a mental disease. Lust and the need to have sex are natural things. Homosexuality is the same, but perhaps in the wrong way. However, I also agree that though their practices might be detestable, they are not different people in any way. One liberal contention that I've noticed is that government should not have the right to define marriage, and nobody really can for that matter. Yet at the same time, homosexuals want legal recognition of being a couple and the benefits that come along with that as well. How interesting.

Dean- the madman has quit! America is saved! Not that he would've won. Now Bush has just a fake and an insulter to the Vietnam veterans to get rid of.

The argument here seems to be that gays are born with the gene. Maybe they are. Nevertheless, they can control their sexuality. However, like I stated earlier, the more important issue is the issue of marriage, which is a heterosexual thing. Homosexuals can control not being married, I'm assuming. Homosexual practice, and getting married are both very controllable things. The argument of the gay gene appears to portray homosexuality as a mental disease. Folks, it is not. Kleptomania, is an example of an uncontrollable disease. Homosexuality is not. I would also like to point out that just because it's a gene, and "uncontrollable," it is right. Just because Kleptomaniacs cannot control their stealing, doesn't mean what they do is right, or should be acknowledged in anyway. Marriage is clearly a heterosexual thing and should remain so, I do not see it any other way. It's insulting when homosexuals try to hijack the institution of marriage to get financial benefits.

Bush and Mr. Hardner, While the exposing of the breast may have been intentional, and being gay and human is not, getting married is. That is the issue here. I have nothing against practicing homosexuals, but when they try to be a part of something they're not, and never really will be, that's a problem. Regardless of who was truly behind the inappropriate halftime show, the point is still the same.

I don't know if you liberals saw the SuperBowl halftime show, but I'm assuming all of you disapproved and were extremely uncomfortable with the exotic scenes that went on. I don't understand why openly gay marriage is any different. It can only be that those who did not care about things that like the SuperBowl halftime show being shown on tv, that are supporters of gay marriage. Gay marriage is a flagrant display of what is not the norm. Just like many parents wouldn't want their 4-year olds watching this year's SuperBowl halftime show, following the logic, I'm assuming they wouldn't their 4-year old asking why best friend Billy has two moms. Why is it any different?

Marriage has always been a heterosexual institution, and should remain so. For homosexuals to hijack this heterosexual institution is immoral and undermining. They cannot be given the same rights for something which they are not innately a part of. This is not prejudice, it is logic.

Sir Riff, yes, consentual marriage is probably a recent thing and only in the U.S. But gay marriage is going too far. Clearly it's biologically erroneous for one. Men were not made to have sexual intercourse with men, and likewise for women. Just like humans are not supposed to have the same type of intercourse with animals, or other species, homosexuality is the same- very wrong and twisted. Marriage has another purpose, different from the ones you have listed. It was mainly for reproduction; you cannot disregard that fact if you view marriage as a social construct. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, obviously. Why should this country let such a twisted and detestable practice be a publically recognized thing? What other doors that shouldn't be opened, are opened?

Gay marriage, as hot of a topic it has been throughout America these days, has not been posted as a topic surprisingly. Truly a thing cannot undermine such a sacred and precious process as marriage. A marriage between a man and a woman is insulted if a "marriage" between a man and a man holds equal value. Folks, gay marriages are not marriages. What they really are is a way for gay couples to get the same social and economical benefits married people do. In doing that, they have insulted the sanctity of marriage across the world. The constitutional amendment defining marriage as a legal union between man and woman is needed, though it really shouldn't be needed, which is the funny thing. Bush is the only candidate in 2004 who supports this, and rightfully so. The Democrats will allow gay civil unions and start changing this entire nation's principles, for the worse.

No I agree, it didn't. He just lied under oath to the entire nation.

Arnold isn't a conservative. I'd vote for Tom McClintock too. It's a shame that the California GOP didn't have the insight to throw their support around him earlier. But like you said, he's certainly better than Gray Davis the liar and Bustamante- the Sequel. Or any left winger. I suggest the leftwingers on this forum read over everything before they make ignorant generalizations and hypocritically accuse the right of "denial and lies". The left wing continually reinforces that it has been a party of accusations and complaints that have no credibility. An idiot would realize that Gray Davis or Bustamante's goal in destroying California's economy wouldn't be in their bests interests. Or is that another "lie"? Read the facts, the statistics, the logic, and the analysis and then come to me.

A fool knows that just because Saddam didn't move or attack anyone, it doesn't mean he doesn't want to start a war. Btw, You say this without remembering Kuwait don't you? Killing people left and right. Your contention is that Saddam is getting old and would have no intention of using WMDs. Pathetic.

That was probably one of the stupidest sweeping generalizations I've read in my life.

I can't believe people are saying that a fetus isn't a child. It isn't a child when it's an embryo, but when it gets to the stage where it has a beating heart and distinct human features, it's a child and it's human. Let's not get too technical here.

I agree. The UN has become corrupt beyond comprehension. It sits there quibbling and complaining while everyday the news is filled with blood-stained students, women, and children. I'm surprised with the way we Americans acted in response to one terrorist attack, that Israel hasn't blown Palestine out of the Middle East. The UN can't tell the United States what to do, so it's picking on somebody smaller. In that, it is becoming morally wrong. It is chastising a nation and criticizing it for defending itself and its people from cowards. The UN must be done away with; it has become corrupt.

No Weapons Doesn't Mean No Threat By Charles Duelfer Monday, October 6, 2003; Page A23 The Iraq Survey Group headed by David Kay has now made an interim report. Ironically, this group has inherited the obligation previously levied by the United Nations upon Saddam Hussein -- namely, to credibly and verifiably detail Iraq's program of weapons of mass destruction to a skeptical international audience. The group has had far more access and resources than the U.N. inspectors under Hans Blix and it has been in Iraq longer. How is it faring and what does the interim report tell us? Particularly, does the absence of a major weapons discovery mean that U.N. inspections were working and the war was unnecessary? Kay states that while no ready-to-use weapons have been found, Iraq is a big country and many depots and other locations are yet to be inspected. However, the Kay report does list evidence of continuing research and development (though not production) in each weapon category. It also describes activities and equipment that Iraq failed to declare to the United Nations and that were not discovered by the inspectors. Future reports will have to show in verifiable detail the extent of these prohibited programs, but these findings will not greatly surprise experienced U.N. inspectors. Hussein had long differentiated between retaining weapons and sustaining the capability to produce weapons. Experience has also shown that Iraq tended to pursue whatever relevant research was allowed or was deemed undetectable. The apparent absence of existing weapons stocks, therefore, does not mean Hussein did not pose a WMD threat. In fact, fragments of evidence in Kay's report about ongoing biological weapons research suggest that Hussein may have had a quick "break-out" capacity to threaten his neighbors and, indeed, the United States with biological agents (possibly including infectious agents). But clearly this is not the immediate threat many assumed before the war. Large stocks of chemical and biological munitions have not been found. The WMD threat appears to have been longer term. Assuming this finding does not change, it will be very important for the Iraq Survey Group to establish when all agents and weapons were eliminated. It will also be important to analyze why the picture Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the Security Council in February was so far off the mark. Future reports will also have to demonstrate what facts about the Iraq WMD program the U.N. teams missed and how Hussein's regime acted to thwart the efforts of the United Nations. This latter issue is vital. Kay makes mention of the Iraqi concealment and deception as one reason why he has found so little. The first U.N. inspection team (UNSCOM) pursued a controversial program to investigate what we termed the Iraqi concealment mechanism. The goal was to show how the enormous resources of Iraq's security and intelligence apparatus undermined the inspection teams. We accumulated evidence that presidential secretary Abed Hamid Mahmoud, now in U.S. custody, directed a government-wide effort to contain inspection activity. This included penetrating the U.N. inspection teams and even obtaining assistance from other prominent countries to fend off the inspectors. Conducting surprise inspections had become almost impossible. The Iraq Survey Group should now have access to the records and participants of the former regime. Future reports must provide a clear description of the Iraqi system for containing inspector activity. This is necessary to inform judgments about the effectiveness of the U.N. inspections. The argument is made that if no weapons were found in Iraq, then maybe the U.N. inspection process was successfully containing Hussein and, therefore, the war was unnecessary. This will be proven wrong if the Iraq Survey Group can show that Hussein could outlast and outwit the efforts of the Security Council to keep him from ever obtaining WMD. While the inspection system may have appeared to be successful at a given point, it was not sustainable and eventually the U.N. Security Council would lose focus. Kay's group needs to document the strategy that Hussein's regime was pursuing to counter and erode the U.N. disarmament measures. The Bush administration appears committed to developing a full picture of the Iraqi weapons program, even if it turns out to be less than was forecast. This task in Iraq, like so many others, is made much more difficult because of early mistakes. Key sites were left unsecured and looters destroyed much evidence. Tons of documents were collected haphazardly, and now they have to be sorted out by experts and linguists -- an extremely time-consuming process. Finally, the Iraqis who are most knowledgeable have been living in fear of arrest by the Americans or death from various internal Iraqi threats. Most of the WMD program leaders have spent the summer in jail. The second-tier scientists and engineers fear the night when U.S. military surround their homes and take them away to face an unknown future. They do not find much incentive to cooperate. Kay appears to be making necessary course corrections, and a full verifiable description of Hussein's programs and policies should be forthcoming. It will have to be meticulous. There are many very knowledgeable people in the audience, including U.N. inspectors and former Iraqi officials, who will ultimately pass judgment on its veracity. -Washingtonpost.com

So you can say, with 100 per cent certainty, that every individual on death row: a. is guilty of the crime for which they are being put to death and b. would kill again, given half the chance. And you get this from....where? I'm not saying anything with a 100 percent certainty. Can you? Did I say anything about individuals who may or may not be innocent? I said murderers; people who murder and kill. I wasn't talking about whether the murderers aren't guilty of their crime and put to death wrongly. That's not the issue here, it's an issue with the justice system getting their facts correct. My point is that people who murder must be put to death, to protect society. Take a look at all those serial killers who murder for pleasure at whim. Just what on earth would make them decide one day to stop? I don't know if you have any children BlackDog, but you tell me if you feel safe if a bunch of serial killers continue to live in jails or prisons, where escape can be possible and everyone innocent is at risk.