Bush's Speech on Brown v Board...

Ironic how so much of what he is saying will be said about people like him years from now when gays are finally given equal rights in this country.

Politicians would be smart to stand up for gay rights and be remembered among those who did the right thing--not among the Strom Thurmonds of the world who promoted racism.

---

oh dennis, dennis, dennis...welcome my friend and here have a helmet. it's gonna get a little loud in here once people read that post.

---

Look, before anything else, I just want to say that gay marriage is probably inevitable, and I seriously doubt Dubya is really trying to stand in the way of it. it just looks like politics to me.

And I still stand by the race and sexuality thing. They are diffirent things on some levels, and this marriage rights battle is going to be quite a bit different from the desegregation of schools battle.

On the hatred is hatred thing, you're right. Unfortunatly some people still hate blacks just like people, even after all these gay right laws, are going to continue to be hateful towards gays. It's a really sad affair, and that's why I support almost all civil rights issues involving gays and other minortities. The thing is I don't see a lot of merit in giving out liscences like this. There are big differences between gay couples and a straight couples and a lot of Americans just want to respect that.

---

Updated On: 5/17/04 at 07:46 PM

well, there is that pesky ability to procreate without any scientific help that is an innately hetero characteristic, jrb.

---

LOL. And, of course, THAT is why straight people get married--not for love and companionship and government protection.

What about:

1. Straight couples who can't have children?
2. Straight couples who don't want children?
3. Gay couples who do/want to have children?

That argument is absolute bull****, and you know it.

How are your kids, papa?

---

And, what I was referring to was the issue of couples. Not families. Not procreation.

And, regardless, the point is--THAT is not a difference that matters in the gay marriage issue.

---

Papa--I was merely clarifying what I was talking about--that I do not see any difference between the relationships in a gay or straight couple. Fine, you and Mrs. Mambo can have a baby the old fashioned way. That does not mean that you are different from Mr. and Mrs. Lambada, who had to adopt. Or, Mr. and Mrs. Salsa, who had to use in vitro. Or, Mr. and Mr. Waltz, who had to ask a friend to carry the baby.

THAT'S my point. That's what I was saying all along. I never had to change anything.

---

Updated On: 5/17/04 at 08:20 PM

MY POINT (I'll say it again--apparently, it hasn't gotten through your thick skull) is that there is no difference between the relationship between the two people, thus no difference to deny gay people a marriage license.

If you REALLY feel that I made an error in not including the family and children part into my argument, then fine--I made an error. There is a difference. My point is that difference is not worthy of denying gay couples the right to marry, which is the point that Dennis pissed me off about.

Are we on the same page finally?

---

"[t]here is a difference."

as long as you're acknowledging that there is indeed a difference. even though your opening sentence goes against this...

i, of course, maintain that the word marriage has no place in civil law and would prefer that all unions be made civil unions with the attendant rights. a marriage is something that takes place in a church. if society wants to recognize all relationships as equal (and i do mean all), then have at it. leave marriage to the churches to argue about.

---

I agree with you on that, papa. All unions should be legal in the U.S. Then, I will go to my church and have them bless me and my husband no matter what the church down the street thinks.

But, when I said no difference between the relationships--I was talking about the love, the companionship, and partnership--all the things you and Mrs. Mambo are experiencing now, not having kids.

---

Updated On: 5/17/04 at 08:36 PM

I think both your points have been covered

1. Those couples are in a minority, again most heterosexuals can have children.

2. The thing is they do anyway! Pills and condoms fail married couples too.

And, papa, I like that idea, why should the government be regulating marriage anyway?

EDIT: Since when did marriage laws have anything to do with love and companionship. It's just a legal contract between two people with social benefits.

---

Updated On: 5/17/04 at 08:39 PM

JRB, ignore them. They will never understand.

---

do you REALLY think you made a point there, papa??

---