buy phentermine online australia

Definition of Marriage

May 13th, 2009

For several days now, I?ve been in a running argument with an individual who goes by the name of ?On Lawn? over in the comments sections of the blog ran by anti-gay equality group National Organization for Marriage. In several comments here, here, and here, this person seems to imply that procreation, or at least the potential for procreation, is a requirement of marriage. I?ve tried several times to get this person to explain this concept but they keep brushing off the question calling it absurd. When I tried to point out that there is no link between marriage and procreation they came back with this.

Well, there shows the damage they want to do to the institution. If marriage can?t look equally at the interests of all involved in the practice of human mating, then you tell me what can.

Prehistoric humans didn?t marry before they mated, they just found a bush did it. When you look at the whole of human history, marriage is a relatively new creation, only being a few thousand years old. Our very existence proves that marriage is not a requirement or an essential element of the human mating process.


Read more

< |||| > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Senate

Used Again

image

Yesterday in the senate we saw more of the political playground in action as Senators play king of the hill over power, using the lives of gay American servicemen and women as pawns. The vote on the cloture for the Defense appropriations bill, which included language for the repeal of of the horrendous military policy of Don?t Ask Don?t Tell which forces gay solders to lie to their fellows and their officers, failed on a vote of 56-43.

No Republicans voted for the bill while 3 Democrats, including Harry Reid voted against it. Reid?s, vote of course was a procedural one so that the bill could be brought up again later. And while many in the LGBT community are trying to lay the blame entirely at the feet of Republicans, they seem to have ignored the events leading up to the vote.

Jim Barroway of Box Turtle Bulletin explains?

In the days leading up to today?s vote, Reid announced that he would allow a vote on only three amendments to the appropriations bill.

?

Those were the only amendments that Reid would allow to come up for a vote, all of which were chosen by Reid for the political advantage they would give the Democrats in tough mid-term election campaigns. His gamble wasn?t really a gamble at all. In fact, his gambit was a win-win for Democrats, at least in how they see their strategy unfolding. If Republicans upheld the filibuster, then Reid could go home and say that it was the Republicans who blocked DADT?s repeal and immigration reform. If the Dems had prevailed on the filibuster, then Reid would have been able to get the Republican caucus on record on these two issues ahead of the November elections. Either way, what Reid actually sought to accomplish was political gamesmanship, not Senatorial statesmanship.

?

The Republican caucus insisted that they be allowed to bring proposed amendments up for a vote as well, a reasonable demand that in ordinary times would not have raised an eyebrow. But these are not ordinary times. Votes in the Senate aren?t about actually doing anything but positioning for the elections. I don?t know what amendments Republicans wanted votes on, but they were undoubtedly just as politically divisive as Reid?s chosen amendments. But by not even allowing debate on a very limited number of those other amendments, Reid doomed DADT?s repeal until after the election.

The LGBT community needs to take off the blinders and realize that neither party is looking out for us and that our equality will never come by way of a vote. The Republicans continue to let their party be highjacked by social conservatives who seem intent on eliminating anyone that doesn?t follow their religious doctrine, while Democrats are just using us for cash and votes.

Edward “Ted” Kennedy 1932 – 2009

image

?The Dream will Never Die?

Categories