Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance

Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Michael Foust
Nov 10, 2006

WASHINGTON (BP)–Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is set to make history next year by becoming the first female House speaker, but she’ll also become the highest ranking political leader in American history publicly to support “gay marriage.”

Her San Francisco district is known for its large homosexual population, and in early 2004 its mayor made headlines when he ordered the city to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses. Eventually, 4,000 were issued, although they were later deemed null and void by the state?s Supreme Court.

In March of 2004, Pelosi was asked by FOX News’ Neil Cavuto, “Can same-sex couples marry?”

?Yes,? Pelosi replied.

Moments later Cavuto asked, ?So what the mayor of San Francisco is doing, you would approve of it??

?Yes,? she replied.

On the same show, Pelosi said a federal marriage amendment would ?enshrine discrimination in the Constitution? against homosexuals.

?I don’t think they should be discriminated [against] in the Constitution,? she said. ?And my goal is to defeat that resolution.?

In recent months Pelosi has tried to distance herself from the more liberal views of her district.

At least two Democrats in the Senate — Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin — also support “gay marriage.”

In 2004 Vice President **bleep** Cheney said he opposed a federal marriage amendment, although he did not state his personal position on “gay marriage.” He said the issue should be left to the states; conservatives responded by saying judges were forcing their will on the states and that an amendment was the only remedy.

11-11-2006 02:51 PM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
Is she mad??

She obviously didn’t see the numerous Gay Marriage bans that were passed the same day her party was elected into power.

The Dems are showing their true radical agenda even before they get into Congress as the ruling party.

Bad strategy methinks.

11-12-2006 08:06 PM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad
Good for her. In the long run, there are many more pressing things with which politicians should concern themselves. If a gay couple wants to get married, it will really have no impact on the “institution” of marriage, but battling it out could definitely take our attention away from more important issues.

11-13-2006 11:49 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
How appropriate a name DumbBroad. Gay Marriage in Scandanavia and Europe will and is having a huge effect on Marriage. It is also threatening the Legal Standing of Biological Parents. The Legal Standing of Fathers is already in serious trouble. Australia’s Supreme Court ruled that a Father who is paying child Support for three children, on one of whom is his. Is obligated to pay support despite the fact that DNA tests confirm on one child is his. His ex wife is living with the biological Father of two of the children.

Paternity Fraud is a huge issue for Men in the US. DNA tests should be mandatory in the US.

11-16-2006 07:50 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad
I wasn’t talking about paternity fraud. I’d agree that the man who did not father those children should not have to pay child support.

My comment was directed toward gay marriage. I’m still unconvinced, unless you can prove otherwise, that two women or two men committing themselves to one another would cause a breakdown in a marriage between a man and a woman. If a straight married couple’s union is so threatened by a gay union that their own marriage crumbles, how strong was it to begin with?

11-16-2006 10:10 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom

dumbbroad wrote:
I wasn’t talking about paternity fraud. I’d agree that the man who did not father those children should not have to pay child support.

My comment was directed toward gay marriage. I’m still unconvinced, unless you can prove otherwise, that two women or two men committing themselves to one another would cause a breakdown in a marriage between a man and a woman. If a straight married couple’s union is so threatened by a gay union that their own marriage crumbles, how strong was it to begin with?

Well traditional marriage has been significantly weakened with the no-fault divorce laws and do whatever feels good culture already.

We were made as men and women to compliment each other. This is just a further breakdown of simple values and getting further away from the way God intends us to live our lives.

Maybe we should do away with legal/government sactioned marriage completely and just have church services/church recognized marriage. In the eyes of the law, we can all be roommates. Churches can have the freedom to determine what constitutes a marriage. People can make lists of who can see them when they are sick and we can all have the same tax code. No lawyers/divorce courts. If one peson wants to move out, they are responsible for themselves. the only law would be that you can’t take a person’s children away or kick the other parent out of the house(unless you have some standard of proof of wrong doing, not smiply allegations. )

I’d have less a problem with that. I don’t want to be required or have businesses be required to recognize 2 men, 2 women, a man and his dog, a woman and her cat etc. as a legal couple.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 11-16-200610:46 AM

11-16-2006 10:45 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“If a straight married couple’s union is so threatened by a gay union that their own marriage crumbles, how strong was it to begin with? ”

Let’s make polygamy legal then.  If your future husband shacks up with more than one woman, then how strong was your marriage to begin with ?

11-17-2006 12:24 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad
Let’s make polygamy legal then. If your future husband shacks up with more than one woman, then how
strong was your marriage to begin with ?

Um, not very strong at all? I don’t see your point. Infidelity is not the same as polygamy. If a man cheats on his wife, it doesn’t mean that a) he’ll want to take that woman on as a second wife or b) that his current wife would be amendable to that.

I think you’re talking about two different things.

Comments against gay marriage that I’ve heard – specifically from politicians like Rick Santorum – are that allowing gay people to get married would somehow ruin the sanctity of existing straight marriages. I have not received an answer, however, as to why this is. If two men in Vermont get married, how exactly does that affect Mr. Santorum’s marriage? Or yours?

And I find it insulting that some people compare gay marriage to bestiality or incest (as Mr. Santorum did in an infamous AP interview). Perhaps it’s because you don’t have many gay friends, but from those gay couples I do know, they don’t want to ruin straight marriages, marry their dogs or have sex with young children.

HappyMom commented that men and women were meant to complement one another. Yes, biologically, men and women do complement each other. But biology is not perfect and somewhere along the line, some people emerged with a preference for the same sex. It’s clear to me that being gay is not a phase or a choice, and that is perhaps where we differ.

11-17-2006 10:51 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
It is compared to those two things in the Bible. Leviticus 20 links these acts as equally abominable.

11-17-2006 11:25 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“Um, not very strong at all? I don’t see your point. Infidelity is not the same as polygamy. If a man cheats on his wife, it doesn’t mean that a) he’ll want to take that woman on as a second wife or b) that his current wife would be amendable to that.

I think you’re talking about two different things”

my point is to make polygamy legal so that it isn’t infidelity.  can’t a guy love more than one woman ?  should adults be allowed to do whatever they want ?  does the gay marriage ordeal open a pandora’s box to other opportunities ?  oh i think it does dumbbroad.  i think it does very much so.

11-17-2006 05:23 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“And I find it insulting that some people compare gay marriage to bestiality or incest (as Mr. Santorum did in an infamous AP interview). Perhaps it’s because you don’t have many gay friends, but from those gay couples I do know, they don’t want to ruin straight marriages, marry their dogs or have sex with young children.”

and i have many friends that would secretly like to be with more than one woman.

so will you grant them the opportunity to marry more than one woman ?

Message Edited by Halladay on 11-17-200605:39 PM

11-17-2006 05:33 PM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
People can sleep with as many other people as they want. Live it up. I really don’t care. The only people whose sex lives affect me is that of myself and my partner, and we have agreeed to be honest with each other and that sleeping with anyone else is unacceptable. There are people out there who don’t have that standard. Some have open marriages and it works for them. I can’t imagine ever doing that, but who they sleep with (as long as it’s not me or my man!) and for what reasons doesn’t affect me.

As for MARRYING multiple people – can any of you say that you know or have heard of: (a) someone would marry another person just because they want to have sex with him/her (in response to Halladay’s point that he knows men who would like to sleep with multiple women), or (b) someone would be able to love, as in love and support unconditionally – the type of love that people should have in a marriage – more than one person at a time?

The somewhat oddball thing is that while homosexuality was an abomination in the Bible, having multiple wives was not at all.

11-20-2006 02:39 PM

Well, actually…
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
It does certainly affect the lives of any children conceived by such actions. The spread of diseases affects everyone that pays taxes or pays for insurance or for their own health care out of pocket.

And Jesus defines marriage as “one man one woman on lifetime”( so polygamy is not sanctioned under the New Testament). This excludes divorce and remarriage as well (es=xcept in the case of fornication.) i personally don’t see divorce and remarriage as being all that different from polygamy. You just space out the time during which you have more than one spouse (I guess time-dispalced polygamy is how I see it)

11-20-2006 03:20 PM

Re: Well, actually…
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad
Yeah, if you want to sleep with more than one person, go right ahead. Marriage might not be the best option. If all these men you know are so anxious to put another notch on their bed post, why did they get married? There are likely many married people who have lusted after another but chose to honor the commitment they made. And just because they want to sleep with another woman doesn’t mean they want to marry that person.

I’m talking about men or women who have found a partner to whom they wish to commit. That’s all. A man loves another man (or vice versa) but also wants to be entitled to inherit the home they share, visit their spouse in the hospital, make medical decisions, put them on their insurance plan, adopt or conceive children and do whatever else straight, married couples do at this point.

HappyMom – the notion that gay couples do nothing but spread disease is rather outdated. Of the more recent stats I read, occurrence of HIV/AIDS grew most among straight women.

11-20-2006 05:16 PM

Re: Well, actually…
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“Yeah, if you want to sleep with more than one person, go right ahead. Marriage might not be the best option”

no.. if you will follow along with me .. what i propose is to make polygamy legal.  that means that a man can marry a number (now listen very carefully here) LARGER than ONE.  not zero.  not just one.  but a number larger than one.

it’s not what i want or how many women i want to marry that is important here.  i’m asking you if you will grant a man the right to marry more than one woman ? i mean you are so concerned with gays. . why do you care how many women a guy marries ?  or.. how many women another woman marries ?

11-20-2006 06:36 PM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“As for MARRYING multiple people – can any of you say that you know or have heard of: (a) someone would marry another person just because they want to have sex with him/her (in response to Halladay’s point that he knows men who would like to sleep with multiple women), or (b) someone would be able to love, as in love and support unconditionally – the type of love that people should have in a marriage – more than one person at a time? ”

Would it make you feel any better if i said that a man would want to marry multiple women due to which day of the week they agreed to cook for him ?  People can already marry for numerous reasons.

11-20-2006 06:39 PM

Re: Well, actually…
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“It does certainly affect the lives of any children conceived by such actions. The spread of diseases affects everyone that pays taxes or pays for insurance or for their own health care out of pocket”

absolutely it can affect lives of others.  just because i don’t steal from stores doesn’t mean i don’t pay higher prices for products.

just because i don’t engage in gay sex, doesn’t mean i don’t pay higher health insurance costs that result from such activity.

happy mom i am glad you realize we don’t live in a vacuum.  some evidently prefer to think they live on a fantasy island immune from other’s decisions

11-20-2006 06:41 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: