Anti-gay amendment advances in Wyoming | 365 Gay News »
Posted By david_nwpa 9 months, 3 weeks ago in Political News
The proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and would block the state recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries where they are legal.
Read Full Story at 365gay.com »
471 Views Share Story 123 Comments Report
Submitted By:
david_nwpa
Hello folks,
Welcome to my little corner of Propeller. I am also available as davidnwpa09 on Twitter.com. I have many followers on Propeller whom ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 123 (view all)
-
77%
david_nwpa9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is one of two stories today in which states are seeking to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians. Recently, Propeller has had an uptick in the number of stories posted about how badly the Christians are being mocked for their beliefs. Yet, they turn around and restrict the rights of gays and lesbians in state after state, but accuse gays and lesbians of "spreading our agenda." The only ones spreading a hate-filled and positively bigoted agenda are the so-called right-wing Christians who think that gays and lesbians should be treated like second class citizens.
Reply
One more "anti-Christian" story makes it to the front page of this site, and I will shriek so loudly the folks in California will complain about the noise. Impressive, since I live in PA.-
25%
b-happy9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How can straight Christians be trying to spread there agenda. Being straight is normal. Being Gay isn't. BTW if what your saying is true then why don't you stick up for the rights of people who want to marry their sister or brother? Aren't the big bad Christians taking away their rights too?
Reply
You ARE pushing your agenda on people. your the one trying to change the definition of marriage and nature. Just leave it alone, go for Civil Unions and you will have a much easier time. But noooooo, you have to push your lifestyle on other people. your the bigot.
-
-
-
43%
DaneL9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Psycho
Reply
Normally I wouldn't even respond to such a stupid post but for you I will. I live up near Yellowstone Nat'l Park which Teddy Roosevelt said was one of the most beautiful places on earth and I would have to agree. We have less than 700,000 people in the whole state and we don't even lock our cars or doors. Our air is clean and the land is open. We aren't over regulated which I'm sure you can't say. I'm sure you live in some over populated cesspool of a city with high crime and dirty air. You're right why would anybody want to live here. Please stay where you are, we like it just the way it is here and we don't need some lib telling us how to live.-
100%
StevieGee9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree DaneL Wyoming is a beautiful state. Maybe we should drill for oil there. Wait... it's a pristine environment just like the arctic national wildlife refuge...
Reply
Wyoming should be able to regulate things such as marriage as they choose. The people of Colorado Springs and Utah need to stay out of other peoples business. During the election, I got more than one call from Utah trying to influence my vote in a state issue here in CA. -
100%
jordan119 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right why would anybody want to live here. Please stay where you are, we like it just the way it is here and we don't need some lib telling us how to live.>>>>>
Reply
Then you won't mind if libs demand that their tax dollars stop subsidizing ya'll then, right? You do realize you get back more than you pay into the needs of our nation? -
100%
willottica9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bravo DaneL, I think it's quite rude to insult another state or country and imply superiority.
Reply
On the other hand, you needn't have called her "some lib" because she is not a typical representative. Pigeonholing like that is the whole reason HER comment was rude to begin with.
-
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Because activist judges have forced the changes on some states. It was never voted in by the people. California has had two referendums about this after judges first ordered it and then struck down the first vote that was not a State constitutional amendment. There are only a little less than 3% of the people in the US who are homosexuals and THEY are trying to change thousands of years of the commonly held concept of marriage. This is to fight back against a splinter group trying to force their views on everybody else.
Reply -
100%
Glimsong9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To be honest I simply do not understand this argument. I do not see how allowing two people to marry because they are the same gender causes a married couple of opposite gender folk to be harmed. I would think that a more pressing concern would be divorce between opposite couples. I do not believe gay marriage is the cause of this trend. In my opinion, a blase attitude towards divorce should be the greatest threat to the sanctity of marriage not gay marriage.
Reply
-
-
25%
Georgia509 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The same reason you strengthen a brick wall that has stood for generations: something is weakening it. That is why repairs and buttress work is constantly done to the Colliseum in Rome. We do not doubt the existence of this structure; at the same time we want it left to posterity.
Reply
If someone wants to live an alternative lifestyle, fine. Come up with an alternative word for marriage. I thought gays were supposed to be hip, creative, and all that. Yet when it comes to how our children are going to be taught in school (which is AN agenda if not THE agenda), they reach out to the oldest, most time-honored social concept in the human language and demand that it bend to include them.
Also, let's not get the horse before the cart. This controversy did not rise from laws defining marriage, but from gay-centric laws that have attempted to make marriage mean something it never has meant in any culture at any time throughout history and across continents.-
100%
ForrestPhelps9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To Georgia50:
Reply
You said: This controversy did not rise from laws defining marriage, but from gay-centric laws that have attempted to make marriage mean something it never has meant in any culture at any time throughout history and across continents."
Do some research. -
100%
earthlingerer9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, the sole purpose of the Coliseum (not as some ignorant would spell "Colliseum") is tourism. It draws big bucks.
Reply
As a matter of fact, the coliseum has been stripped and plundered many times over for stone - to build churches and cathedrals, as well as dwellings. monuments, and for public use.
Periodically, we strip down these buildings of what were truly hate and ignorance (bread and circuses) and build things that BENEFIT and UNITE both citizen and others, that we do progress from the ignorance of the past.
-
-
88%
jakesguile9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You choose not to see it. It's anti-gay because it reduces their rights as people, it takes their ability to marry anybody of consentual age that they wish (wh would wish back obviously) away. If their partner was a woman there'd be no "problem" but because it's a man (or it's a woman as opposed to a man in the cases of lesibians) it's considered wrong even though they're the same people fundamentally whether they married gay or straight
Reply
My point is the law prevents them from pursuing a goal they both desire and which hurts nobody -
0%
Endoscopy9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your logic is the faulty one. Even in ancient Greece where the homosexuality was upheld and thought to be good it was NEVER thought to be acceptable to marry same sex partners. Marriage was held to be a sacred relationship between a man and a woman in order to raise the children properly. You can bring red herring issues into the picture by talking about the woman's place in society but marriage did not change. One man and one or more women always.
Reply
Christians are not trying to spread our agenda but just to keep the status quo that has been held in this country since the first settlers came here. Activist homosexuals are the ones trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the country not the Christians. Get your facts straight. Saying that people are primitive who do not share your views is an ad hominem attack.
Typical liberal rant using red herring issues, ad hominem attacks, and twisting the facts.-
100%
Tangent0019 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...what it's always meant for thousands of years..."
Reply
The concept doesn't go back 'thousands of years'. For the Greeks, becoming a committed couple was simply a matter of two people deciding to do so. There were no ceremonies or formal declarations. Same-sex unions of this sort were fairly common. The Romans were the first to formally marry couples and register that status with the state, and yes, they registered same-sex couples in the exact same manner as straight ones. Homosexual marriage was made illegal by Constans and Constantius, largely because they made homosexuality itself a crime punishable by death. Ironically, it was well known that Constans had several male lovers.
-
-
100%
Poulenc9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Georgia, your logic is faulty. Marriage is a human-made institution and as such is mutable. It has changed over time--since, for example, the days when women were the property of their husbands--and can and will change again.
Reply
Thus you can't define marriage as what it's "always been" anymore than you can define a computer as something that weighs a ton and must be kept in an air-cooled room.
B-happy (!!): "How can straight Christians be trying to spread there [sic] agenda. Being straight is normal. Being Gay isn't."
Well, yes, statistically speaking, being gay isn't normal, like being a nun isn't or being a redhead, for that matter, isn't.
But it is normal in the sense that it represents a (non-harmful) sexual variation that's always been and (I daresay) always will be.
The sooner that primitive thinkers like B-happy recognize this fact, the better for those who are gay and for all others, who will discover, and be made happier by the recognition, that life is a more-inclusive phenomenon than they ever knew.-
0%
Georgia509 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My logic is not the issue and can easily be ignored. Do you imagine there is no such as thing as Roman civil law? Can you cite any ancient codice that defined marriage as anything but union between man and woman? The only deviation you'll find is for polygamy, which rather makes the point that even one-to-many was accepted provided it was along heterosexual lines.
Reply
And although Rome definitely made marriage a civil arrangement, it was not without religious overtones among Roman pagans. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the civil most definitely follows the religious. As a Christian, I hold that marriage is a God-given covenant among fellow believers. That every known civil law follows suit throughout recorded history has not so much to do with my logic or beliefs as much as it does man recognizing the efficacy of God's wisdom.
All that said, I have no problem with a legal accommodation to address homosexual union. My problem--and my only problem--is co-opting the biblical and civil term "marriage" for t hat purpose. -
-
100%
Poulenc9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah, yes, Endo: your philosophy in a nutshell: "keep the status quo." Don't move forward. Don't budge. Things should always be the way they were.
Reply
Endo, life--to coin a phrase--is change. If you're sick, do you go to a witchdoctor? Do you drive a horse-and-buggy? And yet you insist that society be mired in primitive belief.
Why? -
100%
Tangent0019 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's Endo making up facts again. The Greeks had no concept of marriage. People simply decided to commit to one another. There was no ceremony and no registration. Same-sex unions of this type were fairly common and are even represented in Greek mythology.
Reply
As for Romans, Suetonius mentions that Nero had married a slave boy and another male friend. Martial mentions same-sex marriage as well. Indeed, it seems bisexuality was considered the 'norm'. Of the 1st 15 emporers, only one of them, Claudius, is known not to have had male lovers. Political foes of the time used this fact to suggest Claudius was unduly influenced by women.
Same-sex marriage wasn't banned until Constans and Constantius made homosexuality itself illegal in 342 A.D.
-
-
-
-
AbuAmirahComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Silly rant. You ignore that for millennium that marriage has been 1 man and 1 or more women. Ancient Greece and Romans held that marriage was a sacred thing between a man and a woman in order to properly raise the children. This country was settled by people adhering to 1 man and 1 woman. When a religious group (Mormons) tried to have polygamy they left the country to be able to do that. When the country caught up to them they were forced to change.
Reply
Historically this has been the case in the US. A splinter group should not be able to force their viewpoint on the country. It didn't work for the Mormons and should not work for homosexuals.
Wyoming is joining the vast majority of states that have made it a constitutional or law issue to define marriage that way. Massachusetts and Connecticut currently the only states that allow homosexual marriage and that was mandated by liberal courts. When it is put to a vote man and woman marriage wins. -
-
-
-
100%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
-
100%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well endo the liar..
Reply
way do the make those types of laws was the question...
what business of government is it.. ???
what business of YOURS is it...
government USED to define black people as PROPERTY.. only a partial human...
THAT WAS WRONG... YOU ARE WRONG..
you certainly spend a lot of time thinking about GAY THINGS... could it be....??? -
67%
KISA452a9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is absurd... It says that women are inferrior to men because women can not be trusted to make this decision for themselves... How about government staying out of the bedroom of consenting adults? Where's the bandwaggon to shut down the awful abuse of power?
Reply -
25%
KISA452a9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Too true. The reasonable solution that no one will consider. Government get out of the marriage business, go into the "social contract" business. This won't work for gays because they want the historical connotations of marriage, which they have (without argument) not earned in the US. Straights won't like it because they are used to "getting married" and having the government recognize that. But too bad, both groups realize that this marriage thing is too religious in nature, at least in our current society, get government out of this relgious institution and go with civil unions.
Reply
Government probably should not be choosing if gays can marry or not. But they they can decide that minors can't marry or have sex, so apparently there is a line where government can get involved in who sleeps with whom. Everyone has a different place for that line, but few, even the indignant few who CAN'T BELIEVE that government would DARE say who can sleep with whom, actually think it is reasonble in some circumstances.
People need to get rid of the rhetoric, realize they actually don't normally believe what they say and dicuss what they really do mean. "I think governement should interfere with who sleeps with whom at X line". Person 2 "I think the line should be Z". No one should say that government should stay out of the bedroom because no one believes that. Pedophelia? Incest? Rape? Many reasons to be involved. -
-
100%
lvrofwolves9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree marriage is a custom, but I don't believe it's a matter for the church.
Reply
I don't have a problem with the government issuing a license, not like they care where you get married.
I don't have a problem with anyone getting married just about anywhere either, what % of marriages take place in a church, and what % takes place elsewhere? it doesn't matter, they both have exactly the same rights regardless. The church doesn't give the license, and the church doesn't give you any rights, we have rights because we are Americans, and that right belongs to EVERY single one of us. Marriage is a human custom, a custom of love and commitment between 2 people. Now if you don't believe 2 homosexuals can love and commit to one another just as well as a heterosexual couple can, you are incorrect in your thinking. I don't understand how some people think they have a right to deny equal rights for everyone.
And please don't bring in the silly argument of why can't we marry our cat, a child, a sibling, or more then 1 person. All those reason should be obvious.
Heck it was just over 41yrs ago that blacks and whites weren't allowed to marry one another...because of bigotry, equal rights sure is slow going.
-
-
0%
Endoscopy9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ignoring history. Why? Marriage was treated in ancient times down to the present day to be a sacred thing that was between a man and 1 or more women. In the Judeo Christian concept it has been 1 man and 1 woman since the time of Jesus. This country was settled by people adhering to this belief about marriage. The Mormons lost when they tried to change it by allowing polygamy. Why should a splinter of less that 3% of the population be allowed to change it now?
Reply
Spin, Poulenc, spin..... -
100%
Poulenc9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spin, Georgia, spin......
Reply
And why shouldn't gay people be able to describe their vowed-upon union as marriage--a word which carries all the weight of time and (many) conventions past? Would you--presumably straight--settle for getting "civil-unioned"?
Marriage--term and thing--is not just an artifact of a particular bible's teachings. Plenty of people don't believe in a Christian god or any god, for that matter. Should they be yoked to beliefs they don't share or endorse?-
67%
david_nwpa9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One should also note that the Catholic Church at one time had a marriage ritual for gays and lesbians. Even in early Renaissance France, gays and lesbians could enter into civil union arrangements which were so close to marriage, that most folks referred to said couples as married. This is not spin, it is documented history. One might also consider similar marriage arrangements in Japan and China throughout the same time period.
Reply -
100%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
in the time of Jesus .. women were stoned to death for adultery or sex before marriage.. in some parts of the world it's still done....
Reply
should we go back to that just because it was done IN THE TIME OF JESUS...
do you have a donkey in your drive way... -
-
-
100%
Tangent0019 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage is inherently not some grand-and-glorious sacrament. For the vast majority of history marriage was most of all a contract between families for the sake of monetary or political gain. Do you really think the Kings of old actually loved all of their dozens and dozens of wives? Not bloody likely! It was a way of expanding the kingdom, consolidating power, ending rivalries, etc.
Reply
For a good chunk of the world, marriage is still an arranged affair, usually involving the betrothal children. There are negotiations, exchanges of money or property, promises of political reciprocation, etc.. The ceremony is simply the 'icing on the cake', as it were. Adding God or gods into the equation simply gives more 'oomph' to the contract.
Likely the whole reason the Romans started registering couplings was to have a method of resolving property conflicts when one or the other kicked the bucket.-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
80%
Sageparadox9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I could care less about what history says. Back in the day they sacrifice human flesh to the gods, stoned people to death, had slaves, and treated women like property.
Reply
If some states had their ways, slavery would still be active and black people would still have to ride in the back of the bus.
Just let people live and be happy. Stop getting your panties in a twist everytime some one happens to enjoy doing something that you might not agree with or act act in a way that doesnt exactly match your own life style. Stick to your own life and stop trying be a nuisance to other peoples lives.-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
HobeComment removed: Spam
-
HobeComment removed: Spam
-
HobeComment removed: Spam
-
HobeComment removed: Spam
-
HobeComment removed: Spam
-
HobeComment removed: Spam
-
More News
Politics Daily
Obama Met State Dinner Party Crashers; Secret Service Taking Blame
Will Sarah Palin Ever Be President? A Guide to the Predictions
White House Gate-Crashers: Security Breach or Social Office Lapse?
A Year Out, Wisconsin Governor's Race Shaping Up to Be Close
Majority Say Accused 9/11 Conspirators Should Be Tried in Military Court
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.