Zach Wahls is a charismatic 19 year old from Iowa who spoke during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 at the Iowa House of Representatives.
HJR6 would dissolve civil unions in the State of Iowa.

He delivers a very informative and emotionally charged speech.

[This message has been edited by Synthesis (edited 02-04-2011).]

I dont give a damn what the homosexuals do in thier own bedroom, thats up to them to decide......

But if they think I am gonna recognize them as a "married couple" they got another thought comming--and THATS up to me to decide

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: hatespeech *sic*

Did you actually watch the video?

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: the homosexuals

Great name calling. Do you call blacks the "N" word as well?

-------------------------------
Dafydd Thomas -- The only gay in the village

[This message has been edited by tutnkmn (edited 02-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Synthesis: Did you actually watch the video?

Yes, I watched it..and I disagree....IMHO the only "mariage" is one man one women...no same sex, no farm animals, no robots, no domestic animals, and no blow-up dolls.

One man
One Woman.

it aint that difficult (well, it is to about 10% of a very vocal part of the population it seems)

Its sad that he has to be thrilled to actually be a full sibling to his sister because his parents aren't naturally meant to make babies together. He is a pretty good speaker, and he sounds intelligent. He obviously has good genes. I wonder whose? I used to be against gay marriage, but having grown up I realize marriage has already ceased to be sacred. The majority of people on this forum have been divorced, I'm sure, including myself. Really, marriage has become such a trivial thing, what is the big deal? So homosexuality is a perversion... So are plenty of things now deemed normal. Hell, some would argue that anything other than missionary purely for the purpose of procreation is sexual deviancy, and I know I sure like frequent, non-missionary sex for pleasure.

I say let them marry, as long as they meet the standard marriage criteria. Yeah they are perverts, but if they keep the acts behind closed doors it doesn't hurt me. Also, it might put an end to all the flaming homos marching for the right to be flaming homos all the time so I don't have to see a bunch of pasty fat guys wearing makeup and g-strings marching down the street with ass-beads falling out all over the place... That **** aint right...

MidEngineManic,

Well said

Cordially,
Kevin

[This message has been edited by kevin (edited 02-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Only my ex-wife........

Bingo, you really treasure the sanctity of marriage, how many wives should you be allowed to have?
It's not just 10% either, look at any recent poll and its more than 10%.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Bingo, you really treasure the sanctity of marriage, how many wives should you be allowed to have? It's not just 10% either, look at any recent poll and its more than 10%.

Whatever.......sooner or later somebody is gonna stick a dick into a rotting pumpkin and want to put a ring on his/hers/its vine and get married........

and I still aint gonna recognize it .......

Wow. I know I may ruffle some feathers and gain some negs with this but...

For a forum that's comprised of mostly conservatives, you really surprise me. There's way more hate then I would have expected from you fine fellows I call friends.

Conservatism is about LESS government intervention, not more. A government of free people should have no plce in allowing, nor disallow a person's choice in partner. They need only make the necessary legal connection of estates and such. The sanctity of marriage? Puh-leaze. Two homosexuals getting married threatens your marriage how, exactly? Are you so insecure in your own marriages that you think what occurs in someone else's marriage (ANYONE else's marriage, straight or otherwise) effects yours one iota? If so then surely the fact that over half of all marriages end in divorce threatens the sanctity as well? Yet I see no one clambering to ban divorce. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe the government has no place dictating your life, or you do not.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 02-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Bingo, you really treasure the sanctity of marriage, how many wives should you be allowed to have? It's not just 10% either, look at any recent poll and its more than 10%.

Ten percent gay male. How many percent of the population are lesbian, transgendered and bi-sexual? Add them all up and I would just bet that the total number of people willing to admit their orientation is close to 33 percent of the total. That's not counting closet cases and self-deniers.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Bingo, you really treasure the sanctity of marriage, how many wives should you be allowed to have?

ALLOWED ?????????????

HUH ?

not your choice........

you dont have to recognize them..but I am "Allowed" any damn thing I please..I niether ask, nor need, another humans sanction for it.

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Wow. I know I may ruffle some feathers and gain some negs with this but... For a forum that's comprised of mostly conservatives, you really surprise me. There's way more hate then I would have expected from you fine fellows I call friends. Conservatism is about LESS government intervention, not more. A government of free people should not need to allow, nor disallow a person's choice in partner. They need only make the necessary legal connection of estates and such. The sanctity of marriage? Puh-leaze. Two homosexuals getting married threatens your marriage how, exactly? Are you so insecure in your own marriages that you think what occurs in someone else's marriage (ANYONE else's marriage, straight or otherwise) effects yours one iota? If so then surely the fact that over half of all marriages end in divorce threatens the sanctity as well? Yet I see no one clambering to ban divorce. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe the government has no place dictating your life, or you do not.

Well said.

Conservative and gay here. I'm a Log Cabin Republican. Being conservative does not mean being a bigot or homophobe.

Another plus from me if I could, already had you +.

[This message has been edited by tutnkmn (edited 02-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Wow. I know I may ruffle some feathers and gain some negs with this but... For a forum that's comprised of mostly conservatives, you really surprise me. There's way more hate then I would have expected from you fine fellows I call friends. Conservatism is about LESS government intervention, not more. A government of free people should have no plce in allowing, nor disallow a person's choice in partner. They need only make the necessary legal connection of estates and such. The sanctity of marriage? Puh-leaze. Two homosexuals getting married threatens your marriage how, exactly? Are you so insecure in your own marriages that you think what occurs in someone else's marriage (ANYONE else's marriage, straight or otherwise) effects yours one iota? If so then surely the fact that over half of all marriages end in divorce threatens the sanctity as well? Yet I see no one clambering to ban divorce. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe the government has no place dictating your life, or you do not.

Flyboy...like I said..I dont give a frack what they do in the bedroom.....what I do give a frack about is when they ask my sanction, approval and acceptance..........and my answer to that is "no"

So divorced people aren't allowed to have an opinion on marriage?

Anyway...

Sick people.
They know it's wrong, and there is a whisper of a voice in their head that tells them so. They just shut it out and choose not to listen to it.

[/soapbox]

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Flyboy...like I said..I dont give a frack what they do in the bedroom.....what I do give a frack about is when they ask my sanction, approval and acceptance..........and my answer to that is "no"

Nobody is asking you. You are Canadian mate!

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Flyboy...like I said..I dont give a frack what they do in the bedroom.....what I do give a frack about is when they ask my sanction, approval and acceptance..........and my answer to that is "no"

No one's asking your approval but I would bet they would ask that you get the frack out of their way...

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 02-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: No one's asking your approval but I would bet they would ask that you get the frack out of their way...

I'm not in thier way......from the 1st post on this thread, my position has been "they are free to do as they plaease".....

Be as gay as you want...screw a 2x4 for all I care...........

But I wont recognize the 2x4 as yer husband/wife/sister/mom/whatever.......

I dont care who anybody fracks......thats up to them.........

What I believe a marriage should be--is up to me--and that is one man, one woman--and I will never back down from that belief.

Fair enough, since you are a Canadian and haven't a say in US politics. However, here in the US there are quite a few who share your sentiment, who also think its their duty to block any form or gay marriage or civil union. They get all hot and bothered when there's even a hint of government intervention in the realm of public schools or tax code but fully agree with government intervention when it comes to who a person marries.

"How DARE Michelle Obama tell me what to eat!" and yet "Those sicko gays don't get to marry each other. Its WRONG! I tell ya!"

Its hypocritical at best.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 02-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by TommyRocker: So I don't have to see a bunch of pasty fat guys wearing makeup and g-strings marching down the street with ass-beads falling out all over the place... That **** aint right...

Quoted for absolute hilarity!

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Fair enough, since you are a Canadian and haven't a say in US politics. However, here in the US there are quite a few who share your sentiment, who also think its their duty to block any form or gay marriage or civil union. They get all hot and bothered when there's even a hint of government intervention in the realm of public schools or tax code but fully agree with government intervention when it comes to who a person marries. "How DARE Michelle Obama tell me what to eat!" and yet "Those sicko gays don't get to marry each other. Its WRONG! I tell ya!" Its hypocritical at best.

We aint all that different in canada, sir...in fact up here we have "human rights tribunals" (pseodo-courts with administrative powers)--google it.

In canada, I can actually be jailed for failing to recognize and respect the marriage of a fag and a blow-up-doll-sheep...for hurting the little homosexuals feelings and violating his right to be accapted

**** 'em.

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: I dont give a damn what the homosexuals do in thier own bedroom, thats up to them to decide...... But if they think I am gonna recognize them as a "married couple" they got another thought comming--and THATS up to me to decide

Good, and you have every right not to recognize them, or anything else you dont like.. But do you really need a law that forces everyone to live their life by your point of view?

Just curious.

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: We aint all that different in canada, sir...in fact up here we have "human rights tribunals" (pseodo-courts with administrative powers)--google it. In canada, I can actually be jailed for failing to recognize and respect the marriage of a fag and a blow-up-doll-sheep...for hurting the little homosexuals feelings and violating his right to be accapted **** 'em.

You seem to have a lot of hate for a group of people you just said "are free to do as they plaease[sic]."

I wouldn't dream of telling you to change your personal opinions, but why have so much hatred of a group whose practices that offend you don't include you?
If what they do behind closed doors truly doesn't matter - why do you care?

I don't understand the whole "protecting the sanctity of marriage" argument when over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. At that rate, we shouldn't let men and women marry either.
My personal opinion is that there should be no government "law" regarding marriage. Period. Marriage is a religious union and as such should be governed by the person's religion. If you want the legal rights and protections currently offered with marriage, that should be a civil union, which would be a legal union in the eyes of the government. The traditional marriage wouldn't change, except that the one ceremony would perform both a civil union and a marriage for a man and woman. If a church wanted to marry two sheep, it could, but it may only be recognized by that church and not by other churches or the government. Likewise, anyone could get a civil union regardless of religion or any religious restrictions, but it wouldn't be called a marriage.

quote Originally posted by Cheever3000: So divorced people aren't allowed to have an opinion on marriage? Anyway... Sick people. They know it's wrong, and there is a whisper of a voice in their head that tells them so. They just shut it out and choose not to listen to it. [/soapbox]

Everyone is allowed an opinion; But when you base your opinion on tradition and then ignore centuries of tradition that falls contrary to your opinion, I have the right to point it out.
A whisper of a voice in their head or the hateful words and fists of bigots who fear what they cannot understand?

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Wow. I know I may ruffle some feathers and gain some negs with this but... For a forum that's comprised of mostly conservatives, you really surprise me. There's way more hate then I would have expected from you fine fellows I call friends. Conservatism is about LESS government intervention, not more. A government of free people should have no plce in allowing, nor disallow a person's choice in partner. They need only make the necessary legal connection of estates and such. The sanctity of marriage? Puh-leaze. Two homosexuals getting married threatens your marriage how, exactly? Are you so insecure in your own marriages that you think what occurs in someone else's marriage (ANYONE else's marriage, straight or otherwise) effects yours one iota? If so then surely the fact that over half of all marriages end in divorce threatens the sanctity as well? Yet I see no one clambering to ban divorce. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe the government has no place dictating your life, or you do not.

Bingo ! Not my place to judge.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You seem to have a lot of hate for a group of people you just said "are free to do as they plaease[sic]." I wouldn't dream of telling you to change your personal opinions, but why have so much hatred of a group whose practices that offend you don't include you? If what they do behind closed doors truly doesn't matter - why do you care? I don't understand the whole "protecting the sanctity of marriage" argument when over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. At that rate, we shouldn't let men and women marry either. My personal opinion is that there should be no government "law" regarding marriage. Period. Marriage is a religious union and as such should be governed by the person's religion. If you want the legal rights and protections currently offered with marriage, that should be a civil union, which would be a legal union in the eyes of the government. The traditional marriage wouldn't change, except that the one ceremony would perform both a civil union and a marriage for a man and woman. If a church wanted to marry two sheep, it could, but it may only be recognized by that church and not by other churches or the government. Likewise, anyone could get a civil union regardless of religion or any religious restrictions, but it wouldn't be called a marriage.

I dont hate the group..and I really do respect thier freedom to live as they choose.......what I hate is the candian goobernment/ special-interest-groups trying to dictate to me what I will and will not approve of. THAT is a major issue.

Wow.....add another group of Americans to the list.

Just for discussion sake, if you had the power to do so, who would you choose to "rid" America of? ....besides. non-Christians, non-Whites, non-heterosexuals, non-conservatives and so forth? And why? Further, how would you go about achieving your goals?

Just curious....

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 02-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: I dont hate the group..and I really do respect thier freedom to live as they choose.......what I hate is the candian goobernment/ special-interest-groups trying to dictate to me what I will and will not approve of. THAT is a major issue.

Then express that point instead of using derogatory names to describe a group of people.

As for Iowa, they are trying to pass a bill that says "No, we do not legally recognize the two of you as a couple, and therefor, your health insurance from work does not cover your same sex partner, you do not get the same tax breaks that other civil unions do (Note, I did not say Marriage), and your partner has no legal word over any children you may have by adoption or other means.

Listen to what he says, listen closely. You'll hear a message the way it was meant to be heard.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 02-05-2011).]

All I feel I want to say is this:
I could undoubtedly find at least one equally eloquent, and convincing murderer, rapist, paedophile---whatever. Does that mean I have to believe all of the aforementioned are right when they deliver their 'eloquent' speeches? and just as a last, but telling point ..
Barack Obama was probably, ON THE FACE OF IT, the most eloquent and persuasive Presidential Candidate the US ever saw. Many believed...and now they and even MORE suffer the consequences of 'eloquence'.
Nick
Edit to add: I highly suspect his educated eloquence came about because of a good education, not having parents of the same sex. Again, I bet I could find hundreds of offspring of homosexual parents, who are rude, ignorant and far from eloquent. Again, NOT because their homosexual parents were good OR bad...but the education they received was NOT of a par.
I do NOT hate considerate, educated and PRIVATE homosexuals..I abhor the, as Tut once put it to me...the 'screamers', who undeniably cause more prejudice against homosexuals than homosexuality itself. And many of those 'screamers' are what MY homosexual friends call 'Plastic Gays'.

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 02-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tutnkmn: Nobody is asking you. You are Canadian mate!

LMAO--

ok, you got a point....for a brit !!!

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: I've said before on this forum, that everybody is free to live as they choose...but they are NOT free to controll another...

Doesn't that statement fly directly in the face of your views on gay marriage?

Now that I think about it, perhaps I should have directed my previous inquiry to someone who's actually an American citizen. What I think about what happens in Ottawa is of no consequence, either.

Thanks for the compliment, by the way.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 02-05-2011).]

My point of view is that people can, and will, do what they want. But I disagree with changing the definition of a word just to satisfy a small group of people.

"Marrige" has, since the word was invented, meant "one man and one woman" till death do they part. That's waht it means to me. After 25 years, i may still fial the till death part, but that is FAILING at marrige.

A short time ago, in geological terms, somebody decided gays need equal rights. I checked my Constitution, and my Bible. Can't find anything agaist equal rights. You want your partner's health insurance, inheritance, custody rights, etc., I'm fine with that. We invented the phrase "Civil Union" to cover it. No redefining the language to suit a small group.

But now, that's not good enough. No Civil Union seems adequate. The State must recognize gays as being "married". Sorry, that's not what the word means. And I'm a citizen of the State. So if the State is forced to recognize, and by recognizing, condone, gay marrige, I am being forced to as well.

I'm no longer allowed to use the old definition of the word, and the State will officially discourage me from even thinking that way. Suddenly I AM affected by what the State does or does not recognize at the behest of a small proportion of the population.

"But it's more that a small percentage." you say. So, maybe the GLBT population totals 30%. They would ALL be adequately served by Civil Unions. To call it marrige is to infirnge on me, and what I've lived for the last 25 years. That's where I draw a line. What percentage of the GLBT population really needs to insist that I call them "Married"? As the young man in the video stated, "We don't ned anyone to tell us we're a family." Correct. So whay ask me to call you "Married"? Ask for Civil Rights? Great. Ask to change the definition of a word? No, sorry, call it something else. "But we MUST BE EQUAL!" you cry. Apples do not equal Oranges. Both are great. but not the same. And it's not a Macintosh vs. Granny Smith comparison. There's a fundamental difference here that makes it not equal the definition of marrige.

When African-Americans asked for equality, they asked for equal rights. They didn't ask to be called white. They didn't ask for new definitions of old words. Re-run the State Of The Union address, and see how well that worked out for them.

"Another bigot." is how I'll be labelled. If you must hate, so be it. My disagreement with homosexuality is not based on tradition, or religion. It's based on anatomy. You're not using the hardware in the correct way. Sure, you CAN do those things. And they sure must be fun. But as a typical obsessive-compulsive engineer, I must point out that you're not meeting the design intent of your DNA.

Sure, you can use a Wrench as a Hammer. Done it myself, many times. Works mighty fine. But when I say: "Hand me the Hammer.",...

Please. Don't. Hand. Me. A. Wrench.

quote Originally posted by Zeb: But I disagree with changing the definition of a word just to satisfy a small group of people. "Marrige" has, since the word was invented, meant "one man and one woman" till death do they part. .

It also used to mean ownership to the man & servitude to the wife.
And the concept of rape or abuse could not exsist within a marrage.

Sometimes it's good that the meanings of words evolve.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-05-2011).]

I really don't get the big problem. There are gay people here that are married I have yet to have it affect me in any way. As for it being only for man and woman? Says who? The Bible? I don't know what religion someone else is and don't really care, if someone's religion says that two members of the same sex can marry, who they hell am I to tell them they are wrong.

As for the Government telling you that you have to accept it?? Really, is that the only thing the Government does that you disagree with? I can't see how two people loving each other and deciding to marry affects my everyday life negatively.

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: I dont hate the group..and I really do respect thier freedom to live as they choose.......what I hate is the candian goobernment/ special-interest-groups trying to dictate to me what I will and will not approve of. THAT is a major issue.

I can respect and agree with that. But allowing gay marriage doesn't force YOU to approve of anything. It only makes the government recognize the union irrespective of personal or religious beliefs. It would be different if allowing gay marriage somehow impacted you on a personal level.

The arguments we hear about gay marriage today sound a lot like the arguments against interracial marriage 50 years ago. It took the Supreme Court to declare the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" unconstitutional in 1967. People felt they had to protect the sanctity of marriage from interracial couples marrying. Today it's gay couples, but the arguments are the same.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I really don't get the big problem. There are gay people here that are married I have yet to have it affect me in any way.

I've had people argue with me that it drives up the cost of their own insurance.
Now that I think about it, anything the governmet does in favor of a group of people that some people are against, the reason those people give for being against it is not so much a question of interfering in personal choices or freedoms as much as it is about driving up the costs to those that dissagree with it.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-05-2011).]